Court Denied Duty Refunds on Mislabeled Millwork

The U.S. Court of International Trade affirmed that importers cannot seek refunds after customs liquidates entries.

Updated on Oct. 6, 2026 in International Trade

Isometric editorial illustration showing a stack of wooden timber planks in a warehouse, representing customs duty classification. — The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that importers cannot reclaim overpaid duties on mislabeled millwork after U.S. Customs and Border Protection liquidates entries. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should businesses face strict financial penalties for clerical errors in their mandatory government filings?

The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained a ruling that blocks importers from recovering overpaid duties on mislabeled millwork imports. The court determined that importers missed the required 180-day window to protest liquidations.

Why it matters

This ruling highlights the strict enforcement of customs procedures and the limited authority of the Department of Commerce to alter duty assessments once entries are finalized. It underscores the critical need for accurate import classification at the time of entry.

China Cornici Co. Ltd. faces a 220.87% China-wide antidumping duty rate, though its countervailing duty cash-deposit rate was reduced to 8.89% on May 1, 2026. Protests to alter duty assessments must be filed within 180 days of liquidation.

The players

U.S. Court of International Trade

This is a specialized federal court that has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States arising out of import transactions.

Department of Commerce

This cabinet-level executive department is tasked with promoting economic growth and overseeing trade remedies like antidumping and countervailing duties.

China Cornici Co. Ltd.

This is an entity involved in the production of millwork currently subject to high antidumping duty rates in the United States.

The details

Importers erroneously entered millwork as Type 01 general-consumption entries rather than the required Type 03 duty-subject entries. The court ruled that under Section 1592(d) of the U.S. Code, there is no mechanism to claim refunds once entries have been liquidated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

September 2023: Commerce assigned high penalty rates to manufacturers.
2025: CIT Judge Restani ruled Commerce could not terminate reviews.
May 1, 2026: Commerce issued revised redeterminations for duty rates.
Sept. 23, 2026: CIT sustained Commerce's remand results in the China Cornici case.

Market Dynamics

This decision reinforces the strict procedural barriers set by Section 1516a of the U.S. Code regarding the finality of customs liquidations. It follows a pattern of heightened judicial scrutiny over trade compliance and the accuracy of entry documentation.

Importers and retail businesses relying on foreign millwork must ensure precise tariff classification to avoid permanent financial liability for mislabeling. Failure to protest entries within 180 days results in the total loss of ability to reclaim overpaid duties.

The takeaway

Maintaining meticulous documentation for all import entries is essential to preserving legal rights in trade disputes. Importers should establish internal compliance reviews to catch classification errors before the 180-day liquidation protest window closes.