The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling in favor of the United States in *Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States*, decided Jan. 8, 2026, ending a nearly decade-long customs dispute that began in 2017.
The appeals court upheld the lower court's grant of summary judgment for the government on two key issues: whether certain import entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law, and whether Midwest-CBK's transactions qualified as sales "for exportation to the United States" under federal customs law.
District Judge Richard G. Andrews, sitting by designation on the three-judge Federal Circuit panel alongside Circuit Judges Kimberly A. Prost and Colleen McMahon Cunningham, wrote the opinion affirming the Court of International Trade's decision. The case consolidated three separate actions filed in 2017 before Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.
The dispute centered on fundamental questions of customs law enforcement and import valuation procedures administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Midwest-CBK had challenged the government's determination that its import entries remained subject to liquidation and that the company's business transactions constituted sales for export to the United States under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).
The liquidation issue carries significant implications for importers, as entries deemed liquidated by operation of law cannot be subsequently adjusted or assessed additional duties. Midwest-CBK argued its entries had achieved this status, which would have protected them from further government action. The Federal Circuit's affirmance means U.S. Customs retains authority over these entries.
The second issue involved the technical definition of what constitutes a sale "for exportation to the United States," a determination crucial for calculating customs duties and ensuring proper valuation of imported goods. The statutory language requires customs officials to identify the appropriate transaction value for duty assessment purposes.
Midwest-CBK was represented by attorneys from Neville Peterson LLP, including Patrick Klein who argued before the Federal Circuit, along with John M. Peterson and Richard F. O'Neill from the firm's Seattle office. The legal team had challenged both the Court of International Trade's procedural rulings and its substantive interpretation of customs law.
The Department of Justice's International Trade Field Office defended the government's position, with Monica Perrette Triana arguing the case. The government's legal team included Brandon Alexander Kennedy, Aimee Lee, Patricia M. McCarthy, Justin Reinhart Miller, and Brett Shumate from the Justice Department, along with Emma Tiner from the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The case demonstrates the complex interplay between federal agencies in trade enforcement, involving both the Department of Justice's litigation expertise and Customs and Border Protection's technical knowledge of import regulations. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CBP, was also represented in the proceedings.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction over the appeal stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5), which grants the specialized appeals court authority over decisions from the Court of International Trade. This jurisdictional structure ensures that complex trade disputes receive review from judges with expertise in international commerce law.
The three consolidated cases that formed the basis for this appeal - numbered 1:17-cv-00154-JCG, 1:17-cv-00155-JCG, and 1:17-cv-00272-JCG - represent the type of multi-faceted trade disputes that can span multiple years as parties navigate procedural requirements and substantive legal questions.
For importers, the decision reinforces the government's broad authority to maintain oversight of import entries and apply statutory definitions of export sales. Companies engaged in international trade must carefully structure their transactions to comply with customs regulations, as courts will apply technical statutory language strictly.
The ruling also highlights the importance of the liquidation process in customs law, where entries that remain unliquidated can face continued scrutiny and potential additional assessments. Importers seeking finality in their customs obligations must ensure they meet all requirements for deemed liquidation under federal law.
The affirmance means Midwest-CBK's challenge to the government's customs decisions has been rejected at both the trial and appellate levels. The company's options for further review would be limited to a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, though the high court rarely accepts cases involving technical customs law disputes.
The decision adds to the body of Federal Circuit precedent governing customs law interpretation and enforcement, providing guidance for future disputes involving liquidation procedures and export sale definitions. Trade practitioners will likely analyze the ruling's implications for similar challenges to CBP determinations.
This case exemplifies the ongoing tension between importers seeking certainty in their customs obligations and the government's need to maintain flexibility in trade enforcement. The Federal Circuit's affirmance supports the government's position that technical compliance with statutory requirements remains essential in international trade transactions.