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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0223198 - HQ 0223539 > HQ 0223267

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 223267


June 20, 1991

PRO-2-02 CO:R:C:E 223267 CB

CATEGORY: ENTRY LIQUIDATION

Regional Commissioner
Pacific Region
U.S. Customs Service
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA 90831-0700

RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 3001-91- 100331 under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2)

Dear Sir:

The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the protest and our decision follows.

Protestant's request for further review may be summarily disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the administrative record, and protestant has not presented any evidence in support of its counsel's bald assertions. The Customs Service will not grant further review of a blanket protest. Protestant must comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements. Under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1) a protest of a decision must set forth distinctly and specifically each decision as to which protest is made. See generally, United States v. Parksmith Corp., 514 F.2d 1052, 62 C.C.P.A. 76 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 812 (Cust. Ct. 1959); United States v. E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A. 89 (1945).

In the instant case, counsel simply asserts that protestant makes certain claims such as, "illegal liquidation", "improper appraisement", "improper classification", "contract defenses", and "no bond obligation." The Customs Regulations require that a protest set forth the nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each claim. 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6). The Customs Service has and will continue to fully consider any relevant allegation in a protest supported by competent evidence. However, in acting on a protest, Customs cannot and will not assume facts that are not presented (e.g., an unsubstantiated claim that no bond was issued and if a bond was issued it did not cover the payment of duty).

Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be denied in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the CF 19 Notice of Action to satisfy the notice requirement of section 174.30(a), Customs Regulations.

Sincerely,

John A. Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling