HQ 0224441 - Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4909-92-100065; Antidumping Duties; 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1); 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6) - 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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0224091 - HQ 0224514 > HQ 0224441

HQ 224441

May 24, 1993

PRO-2-02/LIQ-4-01-CO:R:C:E 224441 PH

CATEGORY: PROTEST

District Director
United States Customs Service
La Puntilla No. 1
Old San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4909-92-100065; Antidumping Duties; 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1); 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)

Dear Sir:

The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the protest and our decision follows. (NOTE: Original entry documents were included with the protest. We are enclosing those documents.)

The protestant's request for further review may be summarily disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the administrative record, and the 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. The 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., 62 CCPA 76, 514 F. 2d 1052, C.A.D. 1149 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 98, 173 F. Supp. 812, C.D. 2072 (1959); United States v. E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 CCPA 89, C.A.D. 291 (1944).

In this protest, counsel simply asserts that the protestant makes certain claims such as "improper appraisement," "improper classification," "clerical error, mistake of fact or other inadvertence," "contract defenses," "no bond," "no bond obligation," and "laches." Counsel also asserts that the protestant is not responsible for the assessment of duties resulting from a liquidation or reliquidation made under 19 U.S.C. 1592(d) (not the case in this protest), that "antidumping, countervailing and/or marking duties are not lawfully assessed on this merchandise." In regard to the latter, counsel asserts that the liquidation instructions of the Department of Commerce regarding the collection of antidumping duties were not properly followed and that interest was not collected in accordance with the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1677g.

The Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)) require that a protest set forth "[t]he nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal." 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, that it did not cover the payment of duty).

In this protest, the only assertion which may possibly meet the requirement for distinct and specific justification (in 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6), see above) is the assertion that the liquidation instructions of the Department of Commerce for the antidumping duties were not properly followed and that interest was not collected in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677g. In regard to the liquidation instructions of the Department of Commerce, the Customs Service has consulted with that Agency and was advised that the Department of Commerce "found no evidence to support the validity of these claims [and] recommend[ed] that [Customs] deny the [protest]." In regard to the assertion about interest, no interest was collected on the antidumping duties under consideration.

When the above-described protest was filed in this case, it was requested that no decision be issued until supporting memoranda could be submitted. Subsequently, Customs was advised that counsel for the protestant did not have additional information to supply Customs regarding the protest and Customs was requested to respond to the protest based on the information contained therein. Based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be DENIED IN FULL. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the protest.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling