## Facts

- Corrpro imported sacrificial magnesium anodes from Mexico in August 1991.
- Customs classified the goods under HTSUS subheading 8104.19.00 (“magnesium and articles thereof”) and liquidated the entry in June 2000 at a 6.5% duty rate.
- Corrpro believed the merchandise qualified for duty-free preferential tariff treatment under NAFTA as “electrical machines and apparatus” under HTSUS MX 8543.40.00 (or predecessor 8543.30.00).
- In September 2000, Corrpro filed a protest seeking NAFTA duty-free treatment and reclassification.
- Customs denied the protest because Corrpro did not submit, within one year of importation, the written NAFTA declaration and NAFTA Certificate of Origin required by 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) and implementing regulations.
- Corrpro sued in the Court of International Trade (CIT) under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), arguing that earlier agency guidance effectively made a NAFTA claim futile, and that it should still obtain NAFTA treatment via protest.
- The CIT denied the government’s jurisdictional motion, granted summary judgment to Corrpro, and ordered reclassification under the NAFTA duty-free provision.
- The United States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the CIT had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) when the importer did not timely submit the NAFTA declaration and Certificate of Origin required by 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d), and Customs therefore made no protestable decision on NAFTA eligibility.
2. If jurisdiction existed, whether the imported magnesium anodes qualified for NAFTA duty-free treatment under HTSUS MX 8543.40.00.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the CIT.
- Customs’ action was not a protestable decision on NAFTA eligibility because Corrpro never properly invoked § 1520(d) by timely filing the required declaration and Certificate of Origin.
- Without a protestable decision on NAFTA eligibility, the CIT lacked § 1581(a) jurisdiction.
- The court did not reach the merits of the NAFTA classification claim.

## Legal Principles

- NAFTA preferential tariff treatment does not arise automatically on entry; an importer must timely make a written NAFTA declaration and base it on a properly executed NAFTA Certificate of Origin covering the goods.
- Compliance with § 1520(d) and implementing regulations (including the one-year timing and documentation requirements) is a prerequisite to Customs’ administrative consideration of a NAFTA refund/preference claim.
- CIT jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) depends on the denial of a protest challenging a “protestable decision” by Customs; absent an agency decision on NAFTA eligibility, there is no protestable decision to support jurisdiction.
- Reliance on existing agency interpretations that would make a NAFTA claim appear futile does not excuse failure to meet § 1520(d)’s procedural requirements.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that because the importer did not timely submit the NAFTA declaration and Certificate of Origin required by § 1520(d), Customs never made a protestable NAFTA eligibility decision; therefore, the CIT lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(a), and the judgment granting NAFTA duty-free treatment was reversed.


Corrpro Cos. v. United States, 433 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)