CUSTOMS LITIGATION | 2026-10-05

Accelerated Disposition Under 19 U.S.C. § 1515(b): How California Importers Can Force Customs to Decide a Stalled IEEPA Refund Protest — or Get Into Court

Customs can take up to two years to rule on a protest. For importers sitting on large IEEPA refund claims, that delay is expensive. The accelerated-disposition request is a little-known statutory tool that converts an agency delay into a 30-day deadline — and, if Customs still does not act, an automatic denial that opens the door to the Court of International Trade.

A protest is how an importer asks U.S. Customs and Border Protection to change a decision — most importantly, to refund duties that should not have been assessed. But filing a protest and getting a decision are two different things. By statute, CBP has up to two years to allow or deny a protest, and

Protests are the backbone of customs refund practice, but they move on the agency’s schedule, not the importer’s. Accelerated disposition changes that. It is the one tool that lets an importer impose a hard deadline on CBP and, if the agency does not meet it, convert silence into an appealable denial. Used well, it is a powerful way to unstick a large IEEPA refund claim.

The Protest System in Brief

When CBP liquidates an entry and the importer disagrees with the duties assessed — including where IEEPA duties were retained that the importer believes are refundable — the importer files a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. The protest must be filed within 180 days of the date of liquidation, must identify the decision being challenged and the relief sought, and must be filed by a party with standing, typically the importer of record or its authorized agent.

Once a protest is filed, § 1515(a) directs CBP to review it and to allow or deny it, in whole or in part, within two years from the date the protest was filed. That two-year ceiling is a maximum, not a service standard, and it does not require CBP to act quickly. For an importer whose capital is tied up in deposited duties, two years of waiting is itself a significant cost.

What Accelerated Disposition Does

Section 1515(b) gives the protesting party a way to shorten that timeline dramatically. A party that has filed a protest may file a request for accelerated disposition of that protest. The request may be filed at any time after 90 days following the date the protest was filed. It must be filed in the manner the statute and regulations prescribe — in writing, addressed to the port director, and sent by certified or registered mail (CBP’s regulations at 19 CFR 174.22 implement these mechanics).

The consequence is the engine of the tool. Once an accelerated-disposition request is filed, CBP has 30 days from the date the request is mailed to allow or deny the protest. If CBP does not act within that 30-day period, the protest is deemed denied by operation of law on the thirtieth day following the date the request was mailed. In other words, the importer either gets a real decision quickly or gets an automatic denial that it can take to court.

Why a Deemed Denial Is Often the Goal

It may seem counterintuitive to seek a denial, but for many refund claims the denial is simply the gateway to a neutral forum. A protest denial — whether an affirmative denial or a deemed denial under § 1515(b) — is the predicate for filing a civil action in the Court of International Trade. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions contesting the denial of a protest. The importer must file its summons within 180 days after the date of the protest’s denial, and under 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a) it must first have paid all liquidated duties, charges, or exactions on the entries at issue.

For an IEEPA refund claim where CBP is unlikely to grant relief administratively, or where the agency is simply not acting, forcing a deemed denial can be the fastest route to a court that will decide the legal question. Rather than waiting out the two-year § 1515(a) period and then waiting again for a decision, the importer can compress the administrative phase to roughly four months — 90 days before the request may be filed, plus the 30-day response window — and then move to litigation on its own timetable.

When Accelerated Disposition Helps — and When It Does Not

Accelerated disposition is a strategic instrument, not a default move. It makes sense in some situations and is counterproductive in others.

Use it when CBP is unlikely to grant the protest. If the dispute turns on a pure legal question that CBP will not resolve in the importer’s favor administratively, pushing to a deemed denial and into court can save a year or more.
Use it when delay is itself the harm. Where a refund is large and the time value of money is significant, forcing the issue preserves the client’s economics.
Be cautious when CBP is likely to grant relief. If the protest is strong and CBP is working toward allowing it, a 30-day deadline may produce a denial simply because the reviewing office cannot complete its work in time, converting a likely win into a forced lawsuit.
Coordinate with further review. If the protest includes an application for further review seeking a Headquarters ruling, accelerating disposition can cut that process off. The two tools should be chosen deliberately, not combined by accident.

Because the decision is situational, it should follow a candid assessment of whether CBP will grant the protest, how large the refund is, and how much the client values speed over an administrative resolution.

Getting the Mechanics Right

The power of § 1515(b) comes from its deadlines, which means the mechanics must be exact. Several points deserve attention:

Timing of the request. The request cannot be filed until 90 days after the protest was filed. A request mailed too early does not trigger the 30-day clock.
Manner of filing. The request must be in writing, directed to the port director with jurisdiction over the protest, and sent by certified or registered mail so the mailing date — which starts the 30-day clock — is documented.
The mailing date controls. The 30-day period and the date of the deemed denial are measured from the date the request is mailed, so preserving proof of that date is essential.
Calendar the denial date immediately. On the thirtieth day, if CBP has not acted, the protest is denied by operation of law, and the 180-day clock to file a summons at the CIT begins. Missing that downstream deadline forfeits the claim.
Pay liquidated duties before suing. Section 2637(a) conditions CIT jurisdiction on payment of all liquidated duties on the entries in the action, so that payment must be arranged before filing.

Accelerated Disposition in the IEEPA Refund Context

The IEEPA refund wave has created an unusual situation: a very large number of protests raising a common legal question, many of them filed around the same time. CBP cannot decide all of them instantly, and some importers will find their protests sitting unresolved for extended periods. For those importers, accelerated disposition offers a way to break out of the queue.

A California importer with a liquidated entry, a timely protest on file, and a refund that CBP has not acted on can file a § 1515(b) request once 90 days have passed. If CBP allows the protest within 30 days, the importer gets its refund. If CBP denies it, or the 30 days expire with no action, the importer has an appealable denial and can file at the CIT under § 1581(a). Either way, the importer has converted open-ended uncertainty into a defined path with known deadlines — which is often exactly what a claimant needs to make decisions about financing, assignment, or settlement of a refund.

Coordinating With the Broader Refund Strategy

Accelerated disposition does not exist in isolation. It fits within a sequence that begins at liquidation, runs through the 180-day protest window under § 1514, and can proceed to the CIT under § 1581(a). Importers should map that entire sequence for each entry or group of entries before deciding to accelerate. The question is not simply whether the tool is available — it almost always is, 90 days after a protest is filed — but whether forcing a decision now advances the client’s goals, given the strength of the protest, the size of the refund, and the client’s appetite for litigation. That is a legal judgment best made deliberately, with the downstream deadlines mapped in advance.

It is also worth remembering what is preserved along the way. A refund of excess duties ordinarily carries interest, so the delay inherent in waiting out a two-year review period is not merely an inconvenience; it is time during which the importer’s capital sits with the government rather than working in the business. Accelerated disposition does not change the interest an importer may ultimately recover, but it can shorten the overall timeline to recovery, which has independent value when the sums are large. For importers weighing whether to sell, finance, or hold a refund claim, a defined path to resolution — even a path that runs through litigation — is often more useful than an open-ended administrative wait, because it allows the claim to be valued and planned around with far greater confidence.

Who Can File, and What the Request Must Say

Only a party with standing to protest can seek accelerated disposition, because the request attaches to an existing protest. That ordinarily means the importer of record, the consignee, or an authorized agent such as a licensed customs broker or attorney acting with proper authority. A request filed by someone without standing, or on a protest that was itself untimely or defective, does not reliably trigger the 30-day clock, so the validity of the underlying protest must be confirmed before accelerating it.

The request itself is short but must be unmistakable. It should identify the protest by number, the entries and the port involved, and state plainly that the protesting party requests accelerated disposition under 19 U.S.C. § 1515(b). It should be addressed to the port director with jurisdiction over the protest and sent by certified or registered mail so that the mailing date is documented. The goal is to leave no doubt that a § 1515(b) request was made and when it was mailed, because those facts control the 30-day period and the date of any deemed denial.

Deemed Denial Versus a Decision on the Merits

It is worth distinguishing the two things that can happen within the 30-day window. CBP may actually decide the protest — allowing it, denying it, or allowing it in part — in which case the importer has a reasoned decision and knows exactly what relief, if any, it received. Or CBP may do nothing, in which case the protest is deemed denied by operation of law on the thirtieth day. A deemed denial is legally a denial for purposes of the importer’s right to sue, but it comes with no explanation of CBP’s reasoning. For an importer that wants CBP’s legal analysis — perhaps to refine its own arguments before litigating — a deemed denial provides none. For an importer that simply wants to reach a court, the absence of reasoning is no obstacle, because the Court of International Trade reviews the matter without deference to CBP’s unstated views.

This is part of why accelerated disposition and further review are strategic opposites. Further review is chosen when the importer wants a reasoned Headquarters ruling. Accelerated disposition is chosen when the importer wants speed and a path to court, and is willing to forgo CBP’s explanation to get there.

A Timeline Illustration

Consider a California importer whose entry liquidated with IEEPA duties still assessed. The sequence under this strategy runs roughly as follows. The importer files its protest within 180 days of liquidation under § 1514. It then waits the required 90 days before a § 1515(b) request may be filed. On day 91 or later, it mails the accelerated-disposition request by certified mail. CBP then has 30 days from the mailing date to act. If CBP does nothing, the protest is deemed denied on the thirtieth day. From that denial, the importer has 180 days to file a summons at the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), having first paid all liquidated duties on the entries under 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a). Compared with waiting out the two-year § 1515(a) review period, this sequence can shave a year or more off the path to a decision.

Each of those dates should be entered in a litigation calendar at the outset. The 90-day floor before filing, the 30-day response window, the deemed-denial date, and the 180-day summons deadline are all unforgiving, and a mistake at any step can either waste the tool or forfeit the claim.

Managing the Risks

The principal risk of accelerated disposition is that it can produce a denial the importer did not actually want. If a protest is strong and CBP is genuinely working toward granting it, a 30-day deadline may be too short for the reviewing office to finish, and the protest can be denied simply because the clock ran — converting a probable administrative win into a lawsuit the importer must now fund. A related risk is procedural: a request mailed before the 90-day floor, sent to the wrong office, or filed on a defective protest may not trigger the clock at all, leaving the importer worse off because it believes a deadline is running when it is not.

For these reasons, accelerated disposition should follow a deliberate assessment of three questions: whether CBP is likely to grant the protest if left alone, how large and time-sensitive the refund is, and whether the importer is prepared to litigate at the CIT if a denial results. Where the answers point toward litigation anyway, accelerating disposition is often the most efficient path. Where CBP is likely to grant relief, patience usually serves the client better.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a request for accelerated disposition?

It is a written request, authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1515(b), that a party who has filed a protest can send to the port director to force CBP to act. Once filed, CBP has 30 days to allow or deny the protest. If it does not, the protest is denied by operation of law, which lets the importer proceed to the Court of International Trade.

When can I file the request?

Not until 90 days after the protest itself was filed. The request must be in writing, directed to the port director, and sent by certified or registered mail. The date it is mailed starts the 30-day clock and fixes the date of any deemed denial.

Why would I want my protest denied?

A denial — including a deemed denial — is the prerequisite for suing in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). If CBP is unlikely to grant your IEEPA refund administratively or is simply not acting, a deemed denial is the fastest way to get the legal question before a court on your own timetable.

What happens after a deemed denial?

You have 180 days from the date of denial to file a summons at the Court of International Trade, and under 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a) you must first pay all liquidated duties on the entries at issue. Those deadlines and conditions should be calendared and satisfied before filing.

Is accelerated disposition ever a bad idea?

Yes. If your protest is strong and CBP appears ready to grant it, imposing a 30-day deadline can force a denial simply because the reviewing office cannot finish in time — turning a likely administrative win into a lawsuit. The tool is most useful when CBP is unlikely to grant relief or when delay is itself the harm.

Related California Customs & IEEPA Refund Guides

Speak With a California Customs Attorney

Accelerated disposition can turn a stalled refund into a decision or a day in court — but only if the timing, service, and downstream deadlines are handled precisely. Trembach Law Firm advises California importers on protest strategy, § 1515(b) requests, and litigation at the Court of International Trade to recover IEEPA and other customs refunds. To discuss a pending or planned protest, call (213) 645-2246 for a consultation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301