## Facts

- Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH & Co., a German importer, entered a multi-axle gooseneck semitrailer through the Port of Norfolk on February 16, 1980.
- Customs made a transcription error and recorded an unrelated third party as the importer of record in its system.
- Customs liquidated the entry on June 5, 1981, and posted a bulletin notice of liquidation at the customhouse listing the unrelated third party as importer.
- Although Customs commonly sends a mailed “courtesy notice” of liquidation, regulations state that mailed notice is not required and that failure to send it does not affect liquidation’s validity.
- Goldhofer did not receive effective mailed notice tied to the June 5, 1981 liquidation; Customs later mailed Goldhofer a document dated September 4, 1981 labeled “REBILL C.F. 6084.”
- Goldhofer filed a protest on December 1, 1981—179 days after the June 5 bulletin posting but within 90 days of the “REBILL” date.
- Customs denied the protest as untimely under the 90-day statutory protest period measured from the June 5, 1981 bulletin notice.

## Issues

1. Whether bulletin posting alone constitutes legally sufficient “notice of liquidation” under the customs statute and regulations for starting the 90-day protest period.
2. Whether the failure to provide effective mailed courtesy notice—caused by Customs’ clerical error—violated Fifth Amendment due process or otherwise extended the protest deadline.
3. Whether the “REBILL C.F. 6084” mailing constituted a new notice of liquidation or a reliquidation that restarted the protest period.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held that bulletin posting is the official, legally controlling notice of liquidation under the statute and regulations.
- The court held that failure to provide effective mailed courtesy notice does not invalidate liquidation, extend the protest period, or violate due process.
- The court rejected Goldhofer’s argument that the “REBILL C.F. 6084” mailing constituted a new notice of liquidation or a reliquidation.
- Because the protest was filed more than 90 days after the June 5, 1981 bulletin notice, it was untimely and could not be heard on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(2), a protest must be filed within 90 days after notice of liquidation; the operative notice is the method prescribed by law and regulation.
- Under 19 C.F.R. § 159.9, posting the bulletin notice of liquidation at the customhouse constitutes legally sufficient notice; mailed courtesy notices are nonmandatory and do not affect liquidation’s finality.
- A later billing or administrative adjustment that is not a formal reliquidation does not restart the statutory protest period.
- In a regulated commercial setting, constructive notice through the statutorily prescribed public posting method can satisfy due process, even if a nonrequired courtesy mailing is not received.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that Customs’ bulletin posting is the legally sufficient and constitutionally adequate notice of liquidation, and that the 90-day protest period runs from that posting regardless of nonreceipt or misdirection of mailed courtesy notice; Goldhofer’s protest was therefore time-barred.


Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH & Co. v. United States, 885 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1989)