the receipt from Customs. Id. The receipt, however, shows that Customs received Plaintiff’s MPF payment on November 7, 1994. Receipt, Pl.’s Ex. A at 5. The November 8 Letter, on the other hand, indicates that Customs acknowledged the MPF tender, and that Customs intended not to accept the tender’s contingencies. November 8 Letter, Pl.’s Ex. B at 1. Consequently, the Court cannot conclude that Customs’ acceptance of Plaintiff’s tender took place on November 8, 1994. Rather, acceptance occurred a day prior, when Customs received payment and made out the receipt. Customs therefore, on November 7, 1994, made the decision Plaintiff attempted to protest; November 7 was, however, ninety-one days prior to the filing 485, 487, 885 F. Supp. 243, 246 (1995), aff’d, 86 F.3d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 2. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) In the event that
holding courts should interpret the contract using the references of the particular customs and usages of the trade of the parties to the contract holding that an association of licensed customs brokers has standing to challenge an interim customs regulation allowing consignees to make informal entry of certain low value merchandise holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial holding that refusal by customs officials to reliquidate entries became final and conclusive upon the importer when it failed to file a protest within the previously mandated sixtyday limitations period holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over customs allegedly erroneous duty assessments because the importer failed to timely protest liquidation which thereby made the customs decision final and conclusive upon the parties