With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 90-day window. The court is not persuaded that this proposed alternative approach constitutes^ an adequate remedy for Plaintiffs. First, § 1501 simply authorizes Customs, in its discretion, to revisit a liquidation within 90 days of the notice. It does not confer any rights on Plaintiffs and therefore does not constitute a “remedy” for Plaintiffs that would preclude injunctive relief. See Canadian Lumber, 30 CIT at _, 441 F.Supp.2d at 1266 (“a cognizable alternative remedy must rest on more than the whim or discretion of a defendant”). Second, monitoring the liquidation of entries subject to an anti-dumping duty order is a serious challenge even for importers who have access to complete information regarding an entry. See, e.g., Juice Farms, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Defendant-Intervenors were themselves

A: holding defendant cannot establish prejudice merely by alleging court held probation revocation hearing after defendants period of probation expired
B: holding hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by reforming indefinite suspension to temporary suspension of 92 days in excess of 15day statutory period for temporary suspensions
C: holding customs violation of statutory suspension of liquidation not actionable by importer who discovered improper liquidations after protest period had expired
D: holding weintraub rational inapplicable to liquidations because corporation ceases to exist after liquidation order
C.