OPINION
In this action, plaintiff Chrysal USA, Inc. (“Chrysal”) seeks to challenge the tariff classification of “flower food” which was among the various products included in 17 entries of merchandise that Chrysal imported into the United States in 2008. See generally Complaint. Chrysal invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), which vests the U.S. Court of International Trade with exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest.” See id. ¶ 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2006);1 see also Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“PL’s Brief’) at 2.
Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Emphasizing that jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) is predicated on the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s denial of a valid protest,2 the Government argues that no such protest was filed here. See Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss (“Def.’s Motion to Dismiss”) at 4 — 13; Defendant’s Reply Memorandum (“Def.’s Reply Brief’) at 1-8.
As discussed in detail below, the Government’s motion must be granted, and this action dismissed.3
*1317I. Background
Because the filing of a timely, valid protest is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), the Government’s pending Motion to Dismiss turns on whether an August 2009 letter to Customs from Chrysal’s Dutch parent company constituted a “protest,” as defined by the applicable statute and regulation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(l)(A)-(D) (establishing statutory requirements for contents of a protest); 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(l)-(6) (establishing regulatory requirements for contents of protest).
At issue in this action are 17 entries of merchandise that Chrysal imported into the United States in 2008. See Summons; Complaint ¶¶ 1, 12; Pl.’s Brief at l.4 According to the relevant invoices, the 17 entries included a range of various plant-related products — including “leafshine,” “Chrysal cleaner,” and “rose liquid,” to name a few. See Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 1; invoices. According to Chrysal’s complaint, the 17 entries, also included “flower food,” although none of the invoices identify any item as “flower food.” See Complaint ¶ 6; Pl.’s Brief at 1-2; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 1,11; invoices.
At the time of importation, Chrysal filed entry documents with Customs claiming that the various products in the 17 subject entries were classifiable under assorted specified provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). See Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 1 (citing entry papers).5 In particular, in the entry documents that it filed with Customs, Chrysal claimed that the imported “flower food” was properly classifiable under HTSUS subheading 3824.90.92 as a “chemical product! ] [or] preparationf ] of the chemical or allied industries” and thus subject to customs duties at the rate of 5.00% ad valorem. See Complaint ¶ 6; PL’s Brief at 1; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 2 (citing entry papers); Subheading 3824.90.92, HTSUS.
Some months later (in mid-April 2009), before the subject entries were liquidated, Chrysal filed post summary adjustments with Customs, asserting that “flower food” was “wrongly classified” and seeking a refund of duties. See Complaint, Exh. A (post summary adjustment filed for Entry HG8-0119669-9, submitted as example of all relevant post summary adjustments); Complaint ¶ 7; PL’s Brief at 1; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 2.6 In its post summary adjustments, Chrysal did not identify the specific tariff provision that it sought to claim. See Complaint, Exh. A (example of post summary adjustment). However, the post summary adjustments referred to an “attached letter from the Rulings Division” of Customs. See id. (example of post sum*1318mary adjustment); see also Pl.’s Brief at 1; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 2; HQ 955771 (Jan. 2, 1996). In that 1996 ruling, denoted HQ 955771, Customs reviewed four potential classifications and concluded that “powdered cut flower food” of a particular chemical composition was classifiable as a “glucose” product under subheading 1702.30.40 of the HTSUS. See HQ 955771.7
By email message to Chrysal in late April 2009,8 Customs’ Import Specialist noted the chemical composition of the “powdered cut flower food” at issue in HQ 955771 and distinguished it from the chemical composition of a product that the email message identified as “Chrysal Clear Professional 2 T-bag.” See Complaint, Exh. B (email message to Chrysal from Customs Import Specialist, dated April 28, 2009); Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 2.9 Thereafter, *1319Customs rejected Chrysal’s post summary adjustments, and subsequently liquidated the “flower food” in the subject entries as entered by Chrysal, under subheading 3824.90.92. See Complaint, Exh. A (example of post summary adjustment, bearing Import Specialist’s handwritten notation “Disagree” and the date “6/3/09”); Complaint ¶¶ 9,11; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 2-3.10
In late August 2009, Chrysal International BV — Chrysal’s Dutch parent company — sent Customs a letter, which Chrysal contends is the formal “protest” that 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) requires as a basis for invoking this court’s jurisdiction. See Complaint, Exh. C (letter to Customs from Chrysal International BV, dated Aug. 26, 2009); Complaint ¶ 12; Pl.’s Brief at 2; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (vesting Court of International Trade with exclusive jurisdiction over civil action contesting “the denial of a protest”).11 Sent on the stationery of Chrysal’s parent company, the August 2009 letter bore a “Subject” line that read simply “Product composition Chrysal Flower-food.” See Complaint, Exh. C. In its entirety, the letter stated:
Dear reader,
I hereby state that since [HQ 955771, the Customs ruling] which was issued on January 2, 1996 we did not make any major changes to the ingredients and composition of the flower food we sell via our subsidiary company Chrysal USA.
Yours sincerely
CHRYSAL INTERNATIONAL BV
Daphne A. Witzel-Voorn
Manager QC and recipes
Id. Roughly 171/ months later, in mid-February 2011, counsel for Chrysal sent Cus*1320toms a letter characterizing the August 2009 letter from Chrysal’s parent company as a “protest” and requesting its “accelerated disposition.” See Complaint, Exh. D (letter to Customs from counsel to Chrysal, dated Feb. 18, 2011); Complaint ¶ 13; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 3.12 Customs responded on April 21, 2011, advising Chrysal that the August 2009 letter could not be considered a valid protest. See Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 3.
This action followed, in which Chrysal invokes jurisdiction to contest the denial of a protest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), claims that the August 2009 letter from its parent company to Customs constituted the requisite protest, and asserts that the “flower food” in the 17 subject entries should have been classified under HTSUS subheading 1702.30.40, dutiable at the rate of 2.2<t/kg. See Complaint ¶¶ 1, 12, & “Wherefore” clause; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 1-2, 3; Subheading 1702.30.40, HTSUS.
II. Analysis
Where — as here — subject matter jurisdiction is in dispute, the party asserting jurisdiction bears “the burden of showing that he is properly in court.” McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); see also Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2006); 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350, p. 211 (3d ed. 2004). In the case at bar, jurisdiction rests upon 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), which, “[b]y its terms, ... limits the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade to appeals from denials of valid protests.” See Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 906, 908 (Fed.Cir.1999); see also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). In the instant case, Chrysal never filed a protest. Hence, there was no denial of a protest to be appealed, and the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction to hear Chrysal’s complaint.
Chrysal maintains that the August 26, 2009 letter from its Dutch parent company to Customs constituted a valid protest. See Complaint ¶ 12; Id., Exh. C; Pl.’s Brief at 2, 5. It is, however, no exaggeration to say — as the Government does here — that the August 2009 letter “contains none of the requisite elements of a protest” which are established both by statute and by regulation. See Def.’s Reply Brief at 1 (emphasis added); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a); Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 5-13; Def.’s Reply Brief at 1-8. As discussed below, this action therefore must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Moreover, the restrictions imposed by statute are not confined to a protest’s contents. The statute also imposes restrictions as to timing, and expressly prohibits the filing of a -protest “before ... [the] date of liquidation.” ' 19 ' U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A); see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(e) (requiring filing of any protest “within 90 days after ” a specified protestable decision or event) (emphasis added). Thus, even if the August 2009 letter somehow were found to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements governing the contents of a protest (which it does not), the letter was premature as to three entries which were not liquidated until *1321mid-September 2009. Accordingly, quite apart from the contents of the August 2009 letter, there was no valid protest as to Entries HG8-0120126-7, HG8-0120127-5, and HG8-0120150-7. And, absent a valid protest, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) cannot he. See Pl.’s Brief at 5; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 13-14; Def.’s Reply Brief at 9. The timing of the August 2009 letter constitutes a second, independent basis for dismissal as to three of the 17 entries at issue in this action.
A. The Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Governing the Sufficiency of A Protest
By statute, a protest must include certain necessary information. In particular, 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1) requires, in relevant part, that:
A protest must set forth distinctly and specifically—
(A) each decision [of Customs] ... as to which protest is made;
(B) each category of merchandise affected by each [protested] decision ...;
(C) the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor; and
(D) any other matter required by the Secretary by regulation.
19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1) (emphasis added). The implementing regulation promulgated by Customs — expressly authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(D), and set forth at 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a) — expands, and elaborates upon, the elements required for a valid protest, providing, in relevant part:
Contents, in general. A protest shall contain the following information:
(1) The name and address of the protestant, i.e., the importer of record or consignee, and the name and address of his agent or attorney if signed by one of these;
(2) The importer number of the protestant....;
(3) The number and date of the entry;
(4) The date of liquidation of the entry,
(5) A specific description of the merchandise affected by the decision as to which protest is made; [and]
(6) The nature of, and justification for[,] the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal; ....
19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a).
The applicable statute and regulation thus make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that every protest must set forth — “distinctly and specifically” — “the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor.” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C); see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6) (requiring that protest detail “[t]he nature of, and justification for[,] the objection set forth distinctly and specifically ... ”) (emphasis added). The statute further mandates that every protest identify — again, “distinctly and specifically” — the particular Customs decision(s) being protested, as well as “each category of merchandise affected” by each protested decision. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(l)(A)-(B).
The regulation highlights the need for specificity as to each element of a protest and requires that every protest provide additional practical information, including the name and address of the protestant (19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(1)); the protestant’s importer number (19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(2)); both the entry number and the date of the entry at issue (19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(3)); the date of liquidation (19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(4)); and “[a] specific description of the merchandise affected” (19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(5)).
The Court of Appeals has emphasized that these statutory and regulatory requirements governing the sufficiency *1322of a protest are “mandatory.” See Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 909. And, in the seminal Davies v. Arthur, the U.S. Supreme Court summarized the rationale for requiring that every protest convey to Customs such “distinct” and “specific” information. See Davies v. Arthur, 96 U.S. 148, 151, 24 L.Ed. 758 (1877). The Supreme Court there held that every protest:
... must contain a distinct and clear specification of each substantive ground of objection to the payment of the duties. Technical precision is not required; but the objections must be so distinct and specific, as, when fairly construed, to show that the objection ... was sufficient to notify [Customs] of its true nature and character, to the end that [Customs] might ascertain the precise facts, and have an opportunity to correct the mistake and cure the defect, if it was one which could be obviated.
Id., 96 U.S. at 151 (emphases added) (quoted with approval in, inter alia, Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2006); Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 908). Accordingly, every protest must provide the requisite “distinct” and “specific” information, so as to apprise Customs of the nature and character of the protestante complaint.
Courts have considered the sufficiency of protests in a wide range of contexts, and have not hesitated to dismiss cases where the protest failed to include information required by statute or regulation. In Koike Aronson, for example, although the protest specified “the classification to which objection was made,” the protest “did not identify any preferred alternative [classification] or give any details about the nature of the objection or the reasons for it.” Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States, 21 CIT 1056, 1056, 976 F.Supp. 1035, 1036 (1997), aff'd, 165 F.3d 906 (Fed.Cir.1999). The case was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id., 21 CIT at 1057, 976 F.Supp. at 1037. The Court of Appeals affirmed, highlighting the skeletal nature of the protest at issue:
Koike’s protest fails to satisfy the statutory or regulatory requirements of validity. In particular, the protest does not state either “the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor,” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c), or the “justification for [each] objection set forth distinctly and specifically,” 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6). Instead, it simply states, without elaboration, that protest is made against Customs’ assessment of duties on the identified entries. The protest does not even specify the tariff classifications that Koike would have Customs adopt in lieu of the classifications at which it was directed.
Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 908-09. The Court of Appeals emphasized that “[t]he requirements for a valid protest that are contained in [the statute] and the implementing regulation ... are mandatory, and Koike’s protest plainly failed to satisfy them.” Id., 165 F.3d at 909.
XL Specialty Insurance is another example of a case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the insufficiency of the protest. See XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. United States, 28 CIT 858, 341 F.Supp.2d 1251 (2004). The protest in that case had been submitted on Customs’ official protest form, with three additional pages attached presenting several “alternative arguments” challenging Customs’ liquidation of the subject entries. See id., 28 CIT at 860-61, 341 F.Supp.2d at 1253-54 (setting forth the main text of the protest). The protest provided much of the information required by statute and regulation, including the relevant entry numbers, the dates of entry, the dates of liquidation, the decisions being protested, and “the nature of the objection[s].” See id., 28 CIT at 860, 868, 341 F.Supp.2d at 1253, 1260. The court nevertheless dismissed the case, concluding that *1323the protest was not valid because “it failed to state distinctly and specifically the reasons or justifications for [the protestant’s] objections to Customs’ decision as required under the statute and regulation.” See id., 28 CIT at 869, 341 F.Supp.2d at 1260; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C); 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6). The court held that there was “no possible construction of the language of the protest that would indicate that the protest gave the Customs official ... sufficient information such that the official could correct any mistakes in liquidation.” See XL Specialty Ins. Co., 28 CIT at 869, 341 F.Supp.2d at 1260.
To the same effect is Washington International Insurance, which was also dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to the lack of a valid protest. See Washington Int'l Ins. Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 599, 1992 WL 175731 (1992). Like the protest in XL Specialty Insurance, the protest in Washington International Insurance was filed on Customs’ official protest form. See Washington Int’l Ins. Co., 16 CIT at 600-01. The importer had checked the box on the form to indicate that the protest concerned the classification of the subject merchandise. See id., 16 CIT at 600. However, the protest “neglected to provide any description whatsoever of [the importer’s] classification objection.” See id., 16 CIT at 603. In addition, the protest failed to “indicate why [the importer] felt Customs’ classification was incorrect and did not even hint at the classification rate or tariff provision under which [the importer] was claiming.” See id. The court concluded that the lack of information required by 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6) rendered the protest “fatally deficient,” and mandated dismissal of the case. See id., 16 CIT at 601-02, 603, 605; 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C) (requiring specification of “the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor”); 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6) (requiring specification of “[t]he nature of, and justification for[,] the objection”).
Similarly, in Tail Active Sportswear, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying protest failed to “identify[ ] specifically ... the category of merchandise in the entry under protest affected by [the challenged Customs decision],” as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(B). See Tail Active Sportswear v. United States, 16 CIT 504, 507, 793 F.Supp. 325, 328 (1992). Although the one-page protest raised objections as to the classification and rate of duty assessed on women’s apparel, it was silent as to men’s apparel, which was the subject of the lawsuit. Id., 16 CIT at 504-05, 793 F.Supp. at 325-26. The plaintiff asserted that the Customs import specialist had understood that the protest was missing a second page, which (the plaintiff maintained) was supposed to have been a page raising objections as to men’s apparel, but which — according to the plaintiff— had been mistakenly duplicative of the first page (and thus covered only women’s apparel). See id., 16 CIT at 505-07, 793 F.Supp. at 326-28. Emphasizing that “[p]rotest as to classification of the women’s wearing apparel [did] not constitute protest as to the men’s wearing apparel,” the court ruled that, “even assuming arguendo that the alleged duplicative second page was attached [to the protest], the ... protest simply did not distinctly and specifically set forth men’s wearing apparel as the category of merchandise as to which the classification, rate of duty and liquidation was protested.” Id., 16 CIT at 507-08, 793 F.Supp. at 328. The court rejected the plaintiffs arguments to the contrary as “frivolous.” Id., 16 CIT at 507, 793 F.Supp. at 327.13
*1324Chrysal’s arguments here are equally insubstantial. Chrysal’s asserted protest — that is, the August 2009 letter to Customs from Chrysal’s- Dutch parent company — consists of a single, straightforward sentence: “I hereby state that since [HQ 955771, the Customs ruling] which was issued on January 2, 1996 we did not make any major changes to the ingredients and composition of the flower food we sell via our subsidiary company Chrysal USA.” See Complaint, Exh. C (letter to Customs from Chrysal International BV, dated Aug. 26, 2009). This simple communication — which begins “I hereby state ... ” — is, by its terms, merely informational. See id. Indeed, the “Subject” line of the letter reads: “Product composition Chrysal Flowerfood.” See id.
The letter thus is not designated as a “protest”; nor does it even reference the term “protest.” See Complaint, Exh. C; see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(b) (requiring, inter alia, that every protest be “clearly labeled ‘Protest’ ”); Ammex Inc. v. United States, 27 CIT 1677, 1685, 288 F.Supp.2d 1375, 1382 (2003) (dismissing claim for lack of jurisdiction, based on, inter alia, deter-ruination that alleged protest was not “sufficiently labeled as ‘Protest’ and addressed to the appropriate Customs official to satisfy the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(b)”).14 The August 2009 letter also contains no objection to any particular Customs decision, and it gives no hint of any grievance. See Complaint, Exh. C. Nor does the letter assert any request for relief. Id. By any measure, the letter is much too lacking in specificity so as to even resemble a valid protest.
As the Government correctly points out, the August 2009 letter includes none of the elements of a protest set forth by statute and regulation. See Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 10, 12-13; Def.’s Reply Brief at 1, 4, 5. The August 2009 letter thus stands in stark contrast to the alleged protests in the cases discussed above, and in other similar cases. Unlike the letter here, all of those other alleged protests included at least some of the requisite information. Those protests were nevertheless determined to be insufficient and therefore not valid. By comparison, the August 2009 letter to Customs from Chrysal’s parent company is far more deficient.
*1325Specifically, the August 2009 letter fails to identify any particular “[Customs] decision ... as to which protest is made.” See Complaint, Exh. C; 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(A); see generally Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 10, 12; Def.’s Reply Brief at 1, 4, 6. As explained above, the letter appears to be purely informational, and gives no indication that it is connected to any dispute that Chrysal might have with any decision of Customs that might form the basis of a protest. The letter thus fails to comply with the first statutory criterion for a valid protest, 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(A).
Further, the letter includes no reference to any specific “category of merchandise” that is the subject of protest. See Complaint, Exh. C; 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(B); see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(5) (requiring protest to include “[a] specific description of the merchandise” that is subject to protest); see generally Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 10, 11, 12; Def.’s Reply Brief at 4. To the extent that Customs might have gone beyond the four corners of the August 2009 letter and reviewed HQ 955771 (the Customs ruling to which the August 2009 letter referred), that reference still does not suffice to adequately identify the merchandise. See Complaint, Exh. C; HQ 955771 (Jan. 2, 1996); see generally Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 11. HQ 955771, which makes no mention of Chrysal, dealt with “powdered cut flower food” of a specified chemical composition. See HQ 955771. And, even assuming that it were somehow possible to surmise that the August 2009 letter — which includes no entry numbers or dates of entry or other identifying information — was intended to refer to the 17 entries at issue in this action, the entry papers for the 17 entries reflect the importation of a range of various products, not just a single item. See Complaint, Exh. C; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 1, 11; Def.’s Reply Brief at 6. Moreover, none of the invoices associated with the 17 entries identify any of the products therein as “flower food.” See Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 11; Def.’s Reply Brief at 6; invoices. Thus, even if the August 2009 letter were to be read in conjunction with HQ 955771 (to which the letter referred), the August 2009 letter does not adequately identify any specific “category of merchandise” that is the subject of a challenge, and thus fails to comply with 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(B).15
The August 2009 letter similarly gives no notice of “the nature of [Chrysal’s] objection and the reasons therefor,” and is insufficient under the statute for that reason as well. See Complaint, Exh. C; 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C); see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6) (requiring protest to state “[t]he nature of, and justification for[,] the objection”); see generally Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 10, 12; Def.’s Reply Brief at 1, 4. As such, the August 2009 letter fails to *1326satisfy any of the statutory criteria for a protest. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(A)-(C).
The August 2009 letter from Chrysal’s parent company fares no better when judged against the six specific regulatory criteria that supplement the statutory criteria. See 19 C.F.R. '§ 174.13(a)(l)-(6). The regulation — which is expressly authorized by Congress — requires protestants to provide certain very practical information that is needed to afford Custoihs “an opportunity to correct the mistake and cure' the defect, if it was one which could be obviated.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(D) (requiring that protest include “any other matter required by [Customs] by regulation”); Davies v. Arthur, 96 U.S. at 151.
In particular, the regulation requires that every protest include “[t]he name and address of the protestant,” “[t]he importer number of the protestant,” and “[t]he number and date of the entry” at issue, as well as “[t]he date of liquidation of the entry.” See 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(l)-(4). Whether the August 2009 letter is read alone or together with HQ 955771 (the Customs ruling to which the letter refers), the August 2009 letter fails to provide any of this most basic information. See Complaint, Exh. C; HQ 955771; see generally Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 10; Def.’s Reply Brief at 1, 4, 6. In addition, because the August 2009 letter does not adequately identify any particular “category of merchandise” that is the subject of a protest (see discussion of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(B), above), it goes without saying that the letter does not satisfy the more detailed regulatory requirement to provide “[a] specific description of the merchandise.” See 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(5). Similarly, the August 2009 letter — which fails to specify “the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor” (see discussion of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C), above) — by definition also fails to state “[t]he nature of, and justification for[,] the objection,” as the regulation requires. See 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(6).
In short, any fair reading of the August 2009 letter must conclude that the letter was purely informational. The letter is not labeled a “protest,” nor does it use that term. It is utterly barren of anything that might fairly inform Customs of any dispute of any type vis-a-vis any specific importations by Chrysal. Even if read in the context of HQ 955771, the August 2009 letter reflects no suggestion of any grievance on the part of Chrysal and no objection by Chrysal to any particular decision by Customs. Conspicuously absent is any request for relief. The letter lacks even the most fundamental information required of any protest by statute and regulation, such as the protestant’s name and address, the protestant’s importer number, the number and date of the entry at issue, and the date of liquidation.
Only now — with the benefit of Chrysal’s complaint — is it possible to understand that Chrysal had a classification dispute with Customs, involving two subheadings of the HTSUS, relating to imported “flower food.” The August 2009 letter cannot reasonably be read to convey any of that information.
For its part, Chrysal makes no attempt to argue that the August 2009 letter satisfies the “mandatory” criteria for protests prescribed by statute and by regulation. See Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 909; 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(A)-(C); 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a)(1) — (6). Chrysal implicitly concedes that the August 2009 letter does not meet those requirements. See Pl.’s Brief at 2-3. But, relying on Cisco Systems and Mattel, Chrysal argues that protests are to be construed liberally and should be found to be “valid even though they do not meet the strict criteria of [the statute and the regulation].” Id. at 3; Cisco Systems, Inc. v. United States, 35 CIT —, 804 *1327F.Supp.2d 1326 (2011); Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 72 Cust.Ct 257, 377 F.Supp. 955 (1974). Chrysal’s position is wholly lacking in merit.
The Government does not dispute that “technical precision” is not required in a protest, and that protests are to be liberally construed. See Def.’s Reply Brief at 5-6, 7-8. The salient point is that, here, there is simply nothing to be construed.
This is not a case of a protest that is “cryptic, inartistic, or poorly drawn,” but that nevertheless “conveys enough information to apprise knowledgeable officials of the importer’s intent and the relief sought.” See Mattel 72 Cust.Ct. at 262, 377 F.Supp. at 960 (quoted in Saab, 434 F.3d at 1365); see also Mattel, 72 Cust.Ct. at 265, 377 F.Supp. at 963 (noting that, in that case, “each of plaintiffs letters contain all the required elements of a protest”). Quite to the contrary, as detailed above, this is a case where the asserted protest — the August 2009 letter from Chrysal’s parent company — satisfies not a single one of the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. And, historically, the courts have been “unwilling to vitiate the protest requirements mandated by Congress ... in the guise of endorsing a liberal construction of protests.” CR Industries v. United States, 10 CIT 561, 564, 1986 WL 9273 (1986) (quoted in, inter alia, Tail Active Sportswear, 16 CIT at 508, 793 F.Supp. at 328).
Chrysal’s reliance on Cisco Systems and Mattel does nothing to advance its cause. Both cases are readily distinguished from the facts of this case. In both Cisco Systems and Mattel, the nature of the claim against Customs was clear, as was the relief that was sought. See generally Cisco Systems, 35 CIT —, 804 F.Supp.2d 1326; Mattel, 72 Cust.Ct. 257, 377 F.Supp. 955.
The question presented in Cisco Systems was not whether there was an objection sufficient to notify Customs of the existence, nature, and character of a dispute, which is the question presented here. Rather, the sole question in Cisco Systems was whether “networking equipment and parts thereof’ (a term used in the protests) constituted a “category of merchandise” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(B), which requires that a protest identify “each category of merchandise affected by each [protested] decision.” See Cisco Systems, 35 CIT at —, —, 804 F.Supp.2d at 1328, 1332-33. That the protests in Cisco Systems satisfied all other statutory and regulatory requirements for protests was not in issue. In contrast, the alleged protest in this case- — the August 2009 letter from Chrysal’s parent company — satisfies none of the statutory and regulatory requirements.
Chrysal’s invocation of Mattel is equally unavailing. Mattel dealt with whether certain letters to Customs contesting classification decisions could be considered protests, even though the author had framed them as “section 520(c) request letters” (rather than protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514). See Mattel, 72 Cust.Ct. at 257, 377 F.Supp. at 956-57. As the Mattel court noted, the letters at issue there “con-tainted] all the required elements of a protest.” Id., 72 Cust.Ct. at 265, 377 F.Supp. at 963 (emphasis added). The facts of Mattel are thus far from comparable to the facts of the case at bar, where the August 2009 letter contains none of those required elements.16
*1328Unable to demonstrate that the August 2009 letter to Customs from Chrysal’s parent company met the mandatory criteria for a valid protest set forth by statute and regulation, and unable to avail itself of the general maxim that protests are to be construed liberally, Chrysal’s case ultimately rests on its claim that — regardless of the content of the August 2009 letter— Customs understood the nature of Chrysal’s grievance, and on its claim that Customs had an affirmative obligation to investigate Chrysal’s asserted grievance. See PL’s Brief at 5. Like Chrysal’s other arguments, however, these too wither under scrutiny.
Chrysal seeks to make much of an April 2009 email message from Customs’ Import Specialist, alleging that the message proves that Customs “was aware that Chrysal was challenging the classification of its flower food.” See PL’s Brief at 5; Complaint, Exh. B (email message to Chrysal from Customs Import Specialist, dated April 28, 2009). But Chrysal tries to read far too much into that communication. As explained in section I above, that email message did nothing more than note the chemical composition of the “powdered cut flower food” at issue in HQ 955771 and distinguish it from the chemical composition of a product that the email message identified as “Chrysal Clear Professional 2 T-bag.” See section I, supra. No reasonable construction of the April 2009 email message suggests that it constitutes an acknowledgment by Customs’ Import Specialist that Chrysal was asserting a protest as to any specific entries on any particular grounds.
More importantly, even if the April 2009 email message could be read to indicate that the Import Specialist “was aware that Chrysal was challenging the classification of its flower food,” the argument still could not carry the day. The Court of Appeals has expressly held that Customs’ actual knowledge of a protestant’s grievance is irrelevant to an analysis of the sufficiency of an asserted protest. See Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 909. In Koike Aronson, the plaintiff argued that “Customs was fully informed ... as to the substance of Koike’s position,” both “through prior discussions” and through “pre-protest correspondence.” Id.17 The Court of Appeals made short work of the plaintiffs theory:
Even assuming that Koike’s characterization of the facts is accurate, Koike is in effect asking us to hold that a protest is valid if a court can surmise, from the surrounding circumstances, that Customs was aware of the substance of the protesting party’s claim. The requirements for a valid protest that are contained in section 1514(c)(1) and the implementing regulation, however, are mandatory.
Id. There is thus no merit to Chrysal’s attempts here to establish the validity of its asserted protest by resort to “the surrounding circumstances.” See id.18
*1329Just as ill-conceived is Chrysal’s attempt to shift its burden under the statute and the regulation to Customs by claiming that the August 2009 letter from Chrysal’s. Dutch parent company should have “ ‘prompted Customs to seek the precise factual evidence necessary to evaluate [it]’ ” as a potential protest. See Pl.’s Brief at 5 (quoting Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United, States, 27 CIT 979, 986, 276 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1329 (2003), aff'd, 434 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir.2006)). There is some limited authority suggesting that Customs may be expected to inquire into the facts related to a protest in certain cases involving very specific circumstances, such as where merchandise is made up of multiple components and it is necessary to seek clarification as to the precise items at issue. See Estee Lauder, Inc. v. United States, 35 CIT —, —, 2011 WL 770001 *7 (2011) (involving “cosmetics kit”) (cited in block quote in Pl.’s Brief at 3). But clearly this is not such a case. Here, the August 2009 letter stated simply that Chrysal’s parent company had made no “major” changes to the formulation of its flower food since 1996. Such a communication left no open question for Customs’ resolution and did not require Customs to make any inquiry.
Moreover, in the authority on which Chrysal relies, the protest was otherwise complete. See Estee Lauder, 35 CIT at — & n. 4, 2011 WL 770001 *2 & n. 4 0quoting relevant excerpts from protest). It is another matter entirely to suggest, as Chrysal apparently does, that Customs has an obligation to investigate and formulate an importer’s protest essentially ab initio. In XL Specialty Insurance, where the sole issue was whether the (otherwise sufficient) protest adequately stated the “reasons” and “justifications for the objection,” the court dismissed a similar suggestion:
This Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs argument that the underlying reasoning [for its protest] could have been determined by Customs with minimal investigation .... Under the statute, Plaintiff clearly bears the burden of setting forth the reasons and justifications for its objections to Customs’ decisions.
*1330XL Specialty Ins. Co., 28 CIT at 869, 341 F.Supp.2d at 1261 (emphasis added) (citing, inter alia, 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)). Quoting Washington International Insurance, the court cautioned that any other ruling “ ‘would ... effectively require Customs to scrutinize the entire administrative record of every entry in order to divine potential objections and supporting arguments which an importer meant to advance.’ ” XL Specialty Ins. Co., 28 CIT at 869-70, 341 F.Supp.2d at 1261 (first emphasis added) (quoting Washington Int’l Ins. Co., 16 CIT at 604). Such a regulatory scheme would be patently unworkable.19 Chrysal’s claim that the August 2009 letter should have triggered an investigation by Customs thus cannot be sustained.
In sum, it is true that “denial of jurisdiction for insufficiency of protest is a severe action which should be taken only sparingly.” Eaton Mfg. Co. v. United States, 60 CCPA 23, 469 F.2d 1098, 1104 (1972) (cited in block quote in PL’s Brief at 3). On the other hand, as the Court of Appeals has underscored:
[Pjrotests are not “akin to notice pleadings [that] merely have to set forth factual allegations without providing any underlying reasoning.” ... Because the statutory and regulatory requirements are jurisdictional, the consequence of failing to comply with them is harsh. Fortunately, however, the requirements are straightforward and not difficult to satisfy, and thus dismissals for failure to comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites should be rare.
Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 909 (quoting Computime, Inc. v. United States, 772 F.2d 874, 878 (Fed.Cir.1985)); see also, e.g., Saab, 434 F.3d at 1367 (quoting Koike Aronson concerning distinction between the statutory and regulatory standards applicable to protests and the much more lenient “notice pleading” standards).
As outlined above, notwithstanding the fact that the mandatory statutory and regulatory requirements governing the validity of a protest are “straightforward” and “not difficult to satisfy,” the August 2009 letter from Chrysal’s Dutch parent company nevertheless failed to satisfy any of them. The otherwise “harsh” consequence of the dismissal of Chrysal’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction must necessarily follow. See Koike Aronson, 165 F.3d at 909.
B. The Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Restricting the Timing of A Protest
As set forth above, the August 2009 letter to Customs from Chrysal’s Dutch parent company did not constitute a valid protest, because the letter failed to satisfy the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements governing the contents of a protest. See section II.A, supra. However, even if the contents of the August 2009 letter had sufficed to constitute a protest, the letter nevertheless could not constitute *1331a protest as to Entries HG8-0120126-7, HG8-0120127-5, and HG8-0120150-7, because the letter predated the liquidation of those entries. Accordingly, without regard to the contents of the August 2009 letter, jurisdiction will not lie as to Entries HG8-0120126-7, HG8-0120127-5, and HG8-0120150-7. See PL’s Brief at 5; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 13-14; Def.’s Reply Brief at 9.
The statute expressly provides that a protest is to be filed with Customs “within 180 days after but not before ... [the] date of liquidation ” of the entry at issue. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(e) (requiring filing of any protest “within 90 days after ” a specified protestable decision or event) (emphasis added). Here, Entries HG80120126-7, HG8-0120127-5, and HG80120150-7 were not liquidated until mid-September 2009 — several weeks after the August 2009 letter. See Summons; Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 13.20 As such, even if the August 2009 letter were sufficient to constitute a protest (which it is not), the letter nevertheless would have been premature as to the three listed entries, and thus could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction as to those entries. See, e.g., United States v. Reliable Chemical Co., 66 CCPA 123, 605 F.2d 1179, 1181-84 (1979) (reversing trial court’s denial of Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, where protest was filed upon receipt of courtesy notice of anticipated liquidation, but three days prior to posting of bulletin notice of liquidation, which constituted official date of liquidation); United States v. Nils A Boe, 64 CCPA 11, 543 F.2d 151, 155-56 (1976) (and cases cited there).
In sum, without regard to the sufficiency of the contents of the August 2009 letter, there was no valid protest as to Entries HG8-0120126-7, HG8-0120127-5, and HG8-0120150-7. And, absent a valid protest, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) cannot lie. The timing of the August 2009 letter thus constitutes a second, wholly independent basis for dismissal as to three of the 17 entries at issue in this action.
III. Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, jurisdiction over this challenge to Customs’ liquidation of “flower food” in the subject entries of merchandise will not lie. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss therefore must be granted, and this action dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judgment will enter accordingly.