HQ 0556414 - Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-91- 103008 under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2) - 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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0556195 - HQ 0556469 > HQ 0556414

HQ 556414

December 11, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 556414 WAW

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

District Director of Customs
Air Transportation Division
5758 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles International Airport
Los Angeles, CA 90045

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-91- 103008 under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2)

Dear Sir:

The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the protest, which contests the denial of duty-free treatment for certain artificial flowers from Macau under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 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 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. section 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).

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. Section 174.13(a)(6), Customs Regulations (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 the manufacturing operations of the artificial flowers took place in Macau).

Pursuant to INV 8-02 CO:TO:C RG, dated January 22, 1991, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Operations instructed the Regional Commissioners that entries of artificial flowers claimed to be manufactured in Macau by certain factories listed in the memorandum should be denied GSP treatment and rate advanced via the issuance of a Proposed Notice of Action (CF 29). The supplier in this case, "Tai Keong," is one of the factories which has been precluded from receiving duty-free treatment under the GSP pursuant to this memorandum. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner's memorandum states that the SCR/Hong Kong has issued reports of investigation concerning the alleged transshipment of PRC-origin artificial flowers via Macau, which indicate that the named factories were either "not manufacturing artificial flowers in Macau, or were incapable of manufacturing them in the quantities exported to the U.S." Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner stated that in the absence of "compelling evidence" to the contrary, protests filed on the liquidation of entries from any of the named factories should be denied.

With regard to the instant case, protestant has not submitted any independent evidence in support of its claim that the artificial flowers should be granted duty-free treatment under the GSP. Protestant simply asserts that the importer relied on the supplier's representations that the merchandise was manufactured in Macau. Accordingly, without sufficient information to indicate that the artificial flowers were manufactured in Macau (i.e., evidence of processes performed in Macau such as cutting, dying, texturizing, and injection molding), we cannot agree with protestant's claim that the artificial flowers are a "product of" Macau. Therefore, since the first country of origin requirement under the GSP has not been satisfied, we find that the artificial flowers in this case are ineligible to enter the U.S. duty-free.

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 (19 CFR 174.30(a)).

Sincerely,

John A. Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling