## Facts

- Ford imported motor vehicles from NAFTA countries and sought preferential NAFTA duty treatment through post-importation refund claims filed within one year of entry.
- Ford did not submit NAFTA certificates of origin with the claims within the one-year period and did not obtain waivers of the certificate requirement within that period.
- Customs denied Ford’s traditional (non-reconciliation) NAFTA refund claims based on the missing timely certificates or waivers.
- Ford asserted Customs treated similar claims differently by allowing NAFTA claims filed through the reconciliation process without requiring certificates within one year.
- Ford relied on 19 C.F.R. § 10.112, arguing it permitted late filing of required documents absent willful negligence or fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether Customs unlawfully applied inconsistent interpretations of NAFTA’s implementing scheme by accepting reconciliation-based NAFTA claims without timely certificates while denying traditional refund claims for lack of timely certificates or waivers.
2. Whether Customs had provided a reasoned explanation, supported by the administrative record, for treating reconciliation claims and traditional claims differently under administrative-law standards.
3. Whether 19 C.F.R. § 10.112 permitted Ford to submit NAFTA certificates of origin after the one-year deadline applicable to its post-importation claims.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit did not decide that Ford was entitled to NAFTA duty refunds on the existing record.
- The court remanded for a narrow inquiry into whether Customs had a reasonable, record-supported explanation for treating reconciliation claims differently from traditional NAFTA refund claims.
- The remand required Customs to articulate a rational connection between the governing legal framework and the disparate treatment.
- The court left standing the CIT’s rejection of Ford’s reliance on § 10.112 to bypass NAFTA’s specific timing and certification requirements.

## Legal Principles

- An agency may treat similar categories of claims differently only if it provides a reasoned explanation that is consistent with the governing statutes and regulations and supported by the record.
- Administrative review requires more than conclusory assertions; the agency must explain why a distinction exists and how it follows from statutory, regulatory, or procedural differences.
- Where a specific statutory and regulatory scheme imposes defined documentation and timing requirements, a general late-filing regulation does not displace those requirements absent a legally sufficient basis.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit remanded for Customs to justify, through reasoned decision-making, any differential treatment between NAFTA reconciliation claims and traditional post-importation refund claims, while leaving intact that NAFTA’s specific certification-and-deadline rules governed Ford’s claims.


Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 715 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir. 2013)