§ 1514(c)(3) states, however, that parties must file protests “within ninety days after but not before . .. the date of the decision as to which protest is made.” Id. (emphasis added). The decision the protesting party objects to must therefore occur prior to the filing of the protest. As previously stated, CRMC filed its protest on February 6, 1995. Protest Form, Pl.’s Ex. D at 3. To the extent that Plaintiff objects to the unanticipated event of Customs’ decision to refund MPF without interest in February 2000, that event had not yet occurred at the time the protest was filed. Accordingly, under a plain reading of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3), Plaintiff’s protective protest was untimely and invalid. See A.N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States, 12 CIT 969, 972, 698 F. Supp. 923, 925 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Because the escrow agreement stipulated
holding actions filed one day late are barred holding that its plaintiff failed to prove it was prejudiced by defendants actions and dismissing the protest but only after deciding the merits holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court holding that a protest was invalid either because it was filed the day before customs denied a previous claim for relief or barred by the provision allowing only one protest per entry of merchandise holding in a bid protest that a lease awarded by a federal agency was void because it exceeded an explicit congressional limitation legitimated by statute