OPINION

POGUE, Chief Judge:

In this matter, Plaintiff, C.B. Imports Transamerica Corporation ("C.B. Imports"), seeks review of the liquidation, by the Defendant, United States Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), of an entry of automotive safety glass from the People's Republic of China ("China"). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-39, ECF No. 8. Customs moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 Mem. Supp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 3-4, ECF No. 16.

The court finds that Plaintiff's alleged claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2006) is time-barred. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

C.B. Imports is an importer located in Puerto Rico. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. On September 20, 2002, C.B. Imports made entry2 number 261-0419198-1, consisting of automotive safety glass from China. Am. Compl. ¶ 5; Mem. Supp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 1. Customs entered the goods on October 31, 2002, subject to an antidumping duty under case number A-570-867-000. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. The goods were entered at a duty rate of 124.50%, requiring C.B. Imports to make a $51,250.43 cash deposit. Id. ¶¶ 5-9. Customs liquidated3 the entry on February 6, 2004 with a doubling of antidumping duties and then reliquidated the entry on February 27, 2004 to correct the erroneous doubling of duties. Id. ¶ 13; Mem. Supp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2.

C.B. Imports claims that its entry was actually subject to antidumping duty case number A-570-867-009, for which liquidations were suspended on July 31, 2003. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14. In addition, the antidumping duty order for automotive safety glass from China was revoked on June 5, 2007. Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 72 Fed.Reg. 31,052, 31,052 (Dep't Commerce June 5, 2007) (final results of sunset review and revocation of antidumping duty order) ("Revocation Order"). On August 24, 2009, C.B. Imports requested that, in light of the revocation, Customs refund its cash deposit. Am. Compl. ¶ 19. Customs responded on August 26, 2009, informing C.B. Imports that it would not refund the deposit because the entry had already been liquidated. Id. ¶ 20.

C.B. Imports initiated this action on February 17, 2011, asserting that the court has jurisdiction to hear its claim under § 1581(i). Am. Compl. ¶ 4. Customs contends that C.B. Imports cannot assert § 1581(i) jurisdiction because it should have filed a protest of the liquidation and subsequently sought review of any denial of its protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2006). Mem. Supp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 3. Customs also contends that C.B. Imports' claim under § 1581(i) is time-barred by the two year statute of limitations for such claims.4 Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i) (2006).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law. See Sky Tech. LLC v. SAP AG, 576 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2009). Because the Defendant has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the court accepts as true the factual allegations in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984). However, the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed.Cir. 1991) ("A party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in its favor has the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists." (citing KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 278, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183 (1936))).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's alleged claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) is statutorily time-barred

The court has broad residual jurisdiction under § 1581(i) over actions challenging Customs' administration and enforcement of antidumping duty orders.5 However, C.B. Imports' alleged § 1581(i) claim is statutorily time-barred.

Actions brought pursuant to § 1581(i) must be brought "within two years after the cause of action first accrues." 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i). C.B. Imports filed suit on February 17, 2011 to challenge what it believes was the improper liquidation of its entry by Customs on February 27, 2004. Giving C.B. Imports the benefit of the doubt, the court will assume, arguendo, that the cause of action accrued when the antidumping duty order was revoked and C.B. Imports became eligible for the refund of its cash deposit. However, the notice of that revocation was published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2007.6 Revocation Order, 72 Fed.Reg. at 31,052. Thus, C.B. Imports' alleged claim under § 1581(i) was time-barred as of June 6, 2009. See 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i).

II. The Administrative Procedures Act does not offer an alternative basis for jurisdiction

C.B. Imports argues that it is not subject to the statute of limitations applicable to § 1581(i) claims because it has an independent cause of action under section 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2006). Mem. Supp. Pl.'s Opp'n Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 5, ECF No. 18. However, it is well established that the APA is not a jurisdictional statute. See Volkswagen of Am., 31 CIT at 235, 475 F.Supp.2d at 1388. To hear an APA claim, the court must "have an independent basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581." Id. As C.B. Imports cannot assert a timely claim under § 1581(i), as explained above, it also cannot assert a cause of action under the APA. See Royal United Corp. v. United States, ____ CIT ____, 714 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1314 (2010) ("It is, of course, axiomatic that this Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to Subsection 1581(i) to adjudicate a cause of action under the APA.").

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Plaintiff's alleged claim is time-barred. The case must therefore be DISMISSED. Judgment will be entered accordingly.