HQ 0111604 - Vessel Repair; Protest; 19 U.S.C. 1514; 19 C.F.R. 174; 19 C.F.R. 177; DOCK EXPRESS TEXAS. - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule

faqs.org Rulings By Number Rulings By Category Tariff Numbers

faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1992 HQ Rulings > HQ 0111571 - HQ 0111693 > HQ 0111604

HQ 111604

December 30, 1991

VES-13-18 CO:R:IT:C 111604 JBW

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Sharon Steele Doyle, Esquire
Givens and Kelly
950 Echo Lane, Suite 360
Houston, Texas 77024-2788

RE: Vessel Repair; Protest; 19 U.S.C. 1514; 19 C.F.R. 174; 19 C.F.R. 177; DOCK EXPRESS TEXAS.

Dear Ms. Doyle:

This letter is in response to your request that this office reconsider a final protest decision issued by the Regulatory Procedures and Penalties Division.

FACTS:

The DOCK EXPRESS TEXAS is a United States-flag vessel that arrived in the port of Norfolk, Virginia, on June 5, 1987. Upon arrival, the master filed a vessel repair entry that indicated repairs were made to the vessel while in a foreign shipyard. The application for relief filed in conjunction with this entry indicated that the vessel, while en route from Houston to Alexandria, Egypt, encountered a length of mooring line that became entangled and wrapped around the port tail shaft and strut. As a result, the incident caused damage to the vessel. The vessel operator claimed that the event was a casualty and that repairs were required to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to enable it to reach its port of destination. 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1). The cost of repair, the vessel operator argued, was therefore subject to remission.

The Carrier Rulings Branch denied the application in Headquarters Ruling Memorandum 109202, dated April 14, 1988. The Carrier Rulings Branch again considered and denied the casualty claim in the vessel operator's petition for review. Headquarters Ruling Memorandum 109625, dated August 15, 1988. The vessel operator filed a protest, supplemental petition for review, and a supplemental protest in response to the ruling by the Customs Service on the petition for review. These documents were considered twice by the Carrier Rulings Branch: First, the Chief, Carrier Rulings Branch issued an undated letter addressed to the Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner, Commercial Operations Division, South Central Region that granted remission on the casualty. Headquarters Ruling Letter 110027/110130/110138. This letter was published in the microfiche of the Customs Service on December 15, 1989, but was never forwarded to the vessel operator. Prior to remitting the duties, the Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner required further clarification on this issue and forwarded a memorandum back to Customs Headquarters. The supplemental petition procedure was eliminated during this period, see Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States, 13 C.I.T. ___, 727 F. Supp. 1463 (1989), and the supplemental petition was thereafter considered as a protest. This office, operating then as the Regulatory Procedures and Penalties Division, issued its response to the request for clarification on the casualty issue in Headquarters Ruling Letter 110879, dated January 25, 1991. This second letter denied remission on the casualty.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the Customs Service may reconsider a final protest decision.

(2) Whether the Customs Service has failed to follow its administrative procedures if a field office does not notify an importer or other interested person when requesting that Customs Headquarters reconsider a ruling on a protest.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Procedures for protests of decisions by the United States Customs Service have been established through statute and regulations. Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, provides that decisions of appropriate customs officers relating to, inter alia, the liquidation of an entry are final and conclusive unless a protest is properly filed or a civil action contesting the denial of a protest is commenced in the Court of International Trade. 19 U.S.C.A. 1514(a) (West Supp. 1991). The Customs Regulations state that a person whose protest has been denied in whole or in part may contest the denial by filing a civil action in the Court of International Trade. 19 C.F.R. 174.31 (1991). Moreover, the Court of International Trade has itself held that initiation of an action in the Court of International Trade is the only recourse available following the denial of a protest by the Customs Service. San Francisco Newspaper Priting Co., v. United States, 9 C.I.T. 517, 518-19, 620 F. Supp. 738, 740 (1985). The Customs Service has authority under specifically limited circumstance to review transactions to reliquidate voluntarily an entry within ninety days of liquidation (19 U.S.C. 1501), to consider petitions by domestic interested parties (19 U.S.C. 1516), to correct clerical error, mistake of fact, or inadvertence not amounting to an error in the construction of the law (19 U.S.C. 1520), or to reliquidate on account of fraud (19 U.S.C. 1521). However, neither the statute nor the regulations otherwise permit reconsideration of a final protest determination.

Counsel for the vessel operator urges this office to reconsider on the merits its final protest decision. The request by counsel, however, does not fall within any of the above-delineated statutory exceptions to the finality of a protest denial. The proper forum for such review is the Court of International Trade. We therefore decline to review on the merits the request by counsel for reconsideration of the denial of the protest.

Counsel argues further that the Customs Service failed to follow its own regulatory procedure when the Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner failed to notify the vessel operator that it requested reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling Letter 110027/110130/110138. Counsel cites section 177.11 of the Customs Regulations in support of its argument that the vessel operator should have been notified. Procedures established under Part 177 of the Customs Regulations, however, apply only to administrative rulings relating to current or prospective transactions. The regulations state explicitly that rulings under Part 177 should be distinguished from the administrative rulings, determinations, or decisions that may be requested under, among other specifically listed parts, the protest procedures. 19 C.F.R. 177.0. We therefore conclude that the section 177.11 of the Customs Regulations did not apply to the request by the Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit that we reconsider Headquarters Ruling Letter 110027/110130/110138.

HOLDINGS:

(1) This office declines to review on the merits the request by counsel for reconsideration of the denial of the protest. The request by counsel does not fall within any of the above-delineated statutory exceptions to the finality of a protest denial. Furthermore, neither the statute nor the regulations otherwise permit reconsideration of a final protest determination.

(2) The Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner was not under an obligation to notify the vessel operator that it was seeking a reconsideration of a Headquarters ruling on a protest. The Customs Service acted in accordance with its regulations.

Sincerely,

Stuart P. Seidel

Previous Ruling Next Ruling