to another.” Id. In either case, it was a protestable action. The court is certainly aware that this is an unusual case finding jurisdiction in the context of a payment pursuant to § 1592. However, it is important to recognize that this case did not occur in a vacuum. The nature of how importers and Customs interact has not remained static in the last two decades since the Carlingswitch cases. The modernization of Customs procedures and laws has changed traditional understandings of how to treat entries and file documents. For two centuries the standard liquidation and protest method characterized Customs practice. Under that system goods were evaluated by a Customs officer prior to release into the stream of commerce. See, e.g., United States v. G. Falk & Bro., 204 U.S. 143 (1907) (<HOLDING>). In the last twenty years, Customs has moved
holding that imposition occurs at time of entry of judgment holding duty on imports withdrawn from bonded warehouses must be assessed on the basis of weight at the time of original entry not as previously provided for at time of withdrawal holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal holding that the court of appeals in applying state law on appeal of a diversity action must apply law of the state as it existed at the time of its decision rather than as it stood at the time the case was decided in district court