HQ 0950877 - Applications for Further Review of Protest Nos. 1401-91- 100053, 1401-91-100058, 1401-91-100077 under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2); Glassware; specially tempered - 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 0735474 - HQ 0951210 > HQ 0950877

HQ 950877

March 13, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 950877 KCC

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 7013.29.20; 7013.39.20

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
101 East Main Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510

RE: Applications for Further Review of Protest Nos. 1401-91- 100053, 1401-91-100058, 1401-91-100077 under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2); Glassware; specially tempered

Dear Sir:

This is in response to the Application for Further Review of Protest Nos. 1401-91-100053 dated April 19, 1991, 1401-91-100058 dated April 19, 1991, and 1401-91-100077 dated May 1, 1991, which pertain to the classification of glassware under heading 7013, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Numerous Custom Laboratory Reports were also forwarded to this office for examination. We have considered the protests 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, Lancaster Colony Commercial Products, 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, protestant simply asserts in its protests that the entries were liquidated with an increase due to the fact that U.S. Customs felt that the glassware was not actually tempered. The protestant than asserted that Customs Laboratory Reports indicate that certain tests have had questionable results, and then the protestant requested time to submit follow-up information to verify that the glassware was tempered. As of December 18, 1991, when the protests were forwarded for further review, no information had been submitted to support protestants assertions that the glassware was tempered, and, therefore, eligible for a lower duty rate under the HTSUS.

Section 174.13(a)(6) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6), requires that a protest set forth the nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each claim. 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 as is the case here (e.g., an unsubstantiated claim that the glassware is tempered).

Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, the above referenced protests should be denied in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to Customs Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part of the Notice of Action on the protest.

In the future, to assist in the processing of protests, please designate and forward to Headquarters only the "lead" protest. The remaining protests on the same issue should be held and, thereafter, dispensed with according to the determination in the "lead" protest.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: