HQ 225340 - Protest 2704-91-102695; Antidumping Duties; Deemed Liquidation; Time for Liquidation after Removal of Suspension of Liquidation; Nunn Bush Shoe Co. v. United States; 19 U.S.C. 1504(d); 19 U.S.C. 1514 - 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 > 1995 HQ Rulings > HQ 225339 - HQ 226123 > HQ 225340

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 225340

December 23, 1994

LIQ-4-01-CO:R:C:E 225340 PH

CATEGORY: LIQUIDATION

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
300 South Ferry Street
Terminal Island
San Pedro, California 90731

RE: Protest 2704-91-102695; Antidumping Duties; Deemed Liquidation; Time for Liquidation after Removal of Suspension of Liquidation; Nunn Bush Shoe Co. v. United States; 19 U.S.C. 1504(d); 19 U.S.C. 1514

Dear Sir:

The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. Our decision follows.

FACTS:

According to the file, on August 8, 1984, the importer entered certain merchandise (certain coils of wire rods of iron or steel) from Spain. Countervailing duties in the amount of $305,895.04 (at a duty rate of 17.13%) were deposited at the time of entry and no antidumping duties were deposited at that time. The protestant acted as surety for the entry.

The merchandise under consideration was the subject of an antidumping investigation (case A-469-008) (Notice of Preliminary Determination published in the Federal Register of May 8, 1984 (49 FR 19547)) and a countervailing duty order (case C-469-009) (Notice published in the Federal Register of July 10, 1984 (49 FR 28088)). In the former document (i.e., the May 8, 1984, Federal Register notice) it was stated that Customs was being directed to suspend liquidation of all entries of the merchandise under consideration entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication. In a telex dated November 14, 1986 (No. 14795), the suspension of liquidation for the entry under consideration, on the basis of the antidumping investigation, was lifted, effective "immediate[ly]". Authorization to proceed with liquidation of the entry under consideration, suspended on the basis of the countervailing duty order, was received by Customs from the Department of Commerce in instructions dated December 23, 1986.

According to the file, the entry under consideration was not liquidated until December 21, 1990, and liquidation was not extended (see 19 U.S.C. 1514(b)) after the lifting of the suspen- sion of liquidation under the antidumping and countervailing orders. The liquidated entry included antidumping duties of $452,324.90 and an increase in countervailing duties of $123,393.97. Interest was assessed on the increase in countervailing duties. On April 2, 1991, demand for payment of the increased antidumping and countervailing duties, with interest on the latter (totaling $694,424.97) was made on the protestant surety. The demand also included $12,668.98 in interest on the unpaid bill.

On May 29, 1991, the protestant filed the protest under consideration. The basis for the protest is substantively similar to that stated in two similar protests (2704-91-102696 and 2704-91-102697) described and ruled upon in our rulings 225341 and 225343, respectively.

Further review for the protest was requested and granted.

ISSUE:

May the protest in this case be granted?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Initially, we note that the protest was timely filed (i.e., within 90 days of the demand upon the protestant surety; see 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2)) and the matter protested is protestable (see 19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(5)). The certification that the protest is not being filed collusively to extend another authorized person's time to protest, as required for a protest by a surety (see 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2)), was provided.

Our analysis in this protest is the same as the decisions in the above-noted similar protests (i.e., see our ruling 225341 and 225343, copies enclosed and incorporated into this ruling). That is, based on the "deemed liquidation" provision under the then applicable law (19 U.S.C. 1504(d)) and the decision in Nunn Bush Shoe Co. v. United States, 784 F. Supp. 892 (CIT 1992), the entry must be deemed liquidation at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry by the importer of record. See the cited rulings in regard to other issues raised by this protest.

HOLDING:

The entry under consideration was deemed liquidated, pursuant to 19 U.S.C 1504 and Nunn Bush, supra, on the fourth-year anniversary of the entry date (i.e., August 8, 1988).

The duty rates applicable to the protested entry, under the "deemed liquidation" provision in section 1504, are those asserted at the time of entry by the importer of record, i.e, 0.0% for the antidumping duties and 17.13% for the countervailing duties. Since the entry was deemed liquidated as entered and the countervailing duties were deposited at the time of entry, interest may not be charged on either the antidumping duties or the countervailing duties.

The protest (i.e., as to the demand on the surety for payment of the antidumping duties, increased countervailing duties, and interest) is GRANTED. In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office, with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act, and other public access channels.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling