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 > 1997 HQ Rulings > HQ 226417 - HQ 227026 > HQ 226437

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 226437





March 24, 1997

LIQ-9-01-RR:IT:EC 226437 SAJ

CATEGORY: LIQUIDATION

Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
1 East Bay Street
Savannah, GA 31401

RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 1703-95-100123; 19 U.S.C. 1514; 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1); mistake of fact; reliquidation; Omni U.S.A. v. United States; Pollak Import-Export Corp. v. United States; Border Brokerage Co., Inc. v. United States

Dear Sir:

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

FACTS:

This protest has been filed against your denial of a request for reliquidation of the subject entry pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

Wholesale Supply Company (protestant) entered four-piece dinnerware sets (merchandise) from France under the following entry numbers: 110-17xxx00-0;
110-17xxx49-4; 110-17xxx11-9; and 110-17xxx20-2. These four entries liquidated on July 15, 1994, April 27, 1994, July 15, 1994, and July 15, 1994, respectively. On June 29, 1994, Customs Form (CF) 29 Notice of Action was issued, rate advancing entry numbers 110-17xxx00-0 and 110-17xxx20-2. Customs reclassified the merchandise under 7013.3920/30%, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), according to the recommendations in the lab reports stating that the merchandise did not meet the criteria for specially tempered glass.

In a letter dated March 30, 1995, which was a cover letter to a letter dated March 21, 1995 that had not been received by Customs, protestant timely filed a request for reliquidation under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1) for three entries. In the March 21, 1995 letter, protestant argued that Customs had erroneously applied the incorrect testing protocol for determining if the imported merchandise was tempered glass. Protestant specifically identifies entry numbers 110-17xxx00-0; 110-17xxx49-4; and 110-17xxx11-9 in the RE: line of the letter dated March 30, 1995. The March 21, 1995 letter contains the following text in the RE: line: "Entry Numbers 110-17xxx00-0; 110-17xxx49-4; and 110-17xxx11-9; Request for Reliquidation Under 19 U.S.C. ?1520(c), Transmittal of Samples." The body of the letter dated March 21, 1995 states that reliquidation is requested for the "above-captioned entries." The March 21, 1995 letter contains a section called "Analysis of the Lab Reports and Worksheets." Under this section, protestant placed the following entries for each of the subsections: "A. Entry Number 110-17xxx00-0"; "B. Entry Number 110-17xxx11-9"; and "C. Entry Number 110-17xxx49-4." Samples of the different styles of merchandise involved for the three entries were provided.

Protestant also included, with the 1520(c)(1) claim in the March 21, 1995 request for reliquidation, copies of Customs Laboratory Reports and worksheets analyzing the merchandise. Each Laboratory Report specifically identifies the relevant entry number for the merchandise evaluated. The file does not contain a lab report for the entry at issue (entry number 110-17xxx20-2).

Customs took action and reliquidated the three entries identified in protestant's request for reliquidation. However, because the entry at issue in the instant case (entry number 110-17xxx20-2) was not identified on protestant's request for reliquidation dated March 30, 1995 and March 21, 1995, nor was it referenced in the lab reports submitted with that request, it was not reliquidated with the three identified entries.

This protest, therefore, concerns only one of the initial four entries. The entry at issue concerns entry number 110-17xxx20-2 (entry 20-2), which was entered on January 8, 1994, and describes the imported merchandise on CF 7501 as "GLAWARE, OTHER, TEMPERED." The merchandise was classified under 7013.39.1000/12.50% in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Entry 20-2 was liquidated on July 15, 1994.

Protestant contends that entry 20-2 was mistakenly omitted from the March 30, 1995 request for reliquidation. On July 25, 1995, protestant for the first time identified entry 20-2 and filed a 1520(c)(1) claim requesting reliquidation under file number 1703-95-200042. Customs denied the reliquidation of entry 20-2 as untimely on August 18, 1995 and this protest for further review was filed on September 15, 1995.

ISSUE:

Whether Customs properly denied protestant's request to reliquidate the subject entry under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Initially, we note that the subject protest against the denial of the 1520(c)(1) petition was timely filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(3)(B). The petition was denied as untimely on August 18, 1995, and the protest against this denial was filed on September 15, 1995, within 90 days from August 18, 1995 as prescribed under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(3)(B). The issue at hand, therefore, is whether the denial of the 1520(c)(1) petition was proper.

A protest against the liquidation of an entry under 19 U.S.C. 1514 must be filed within 90 days after the date of liquidation (19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(3)). Otherwise, the tariff treatment of merchandise is final and conclusive. Protestant's request for reliquidation under 19 U.S.C. 1514 was untimely filed, since more than 90 days had elapsed between the date of liquidation and the filing of the protest. The entry at issue was liquidated on July 15, 1994, and was not protested for the classification of the merchandise until July 25, 1995.

19 U.S.C. 1514 sets forth the proper procedure for an importer to protest the classification and appraisal of merchandise when it believes Customs has misinterpreted the applicable law. 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1) is an exception to the finality of section 1514. Therefore, although the protest under consideration is untimely under 19 U.S.C. 1514, we note that the courts have treated untimely protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 as seeking relief under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c), if such protest meet the requirements for claims under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1).

The relief provided for in section 1520(c)(1) is not an alternative to the relief provided for in the form of protests under section 1514. Section 1520(c)(1) only affords "limited relief in situations defined therein." Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States, 55 CCPA 7, 11, C.A.D. 893 (1966), quoted in Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Co., Inc. v. United States, 85 Cust. Ct. 68, 69, C.D. 4874, 496 F. Supp. 1326 (1980). Under section 1520(c)(1), Customs may reliquidate an entry to correct a clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence, not amounting to an error in the construction of a law, when certain conditions are met. The error must be adverse to the importer and manifest from the record or established by documentary evidence and brought to the attention of Customs within one year after the date of liquidation.

The conditions required to be met under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1) are that the clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence must be adverse to the importer, manifest from the record or established by documentary evidence. See ITT Corp. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the case at hand, protestant timely filed the section 1520(c)(1) claim for three out of the four entries set forth under the FACTS portion of this ruling. However, protestant did not raise the section 1520(c)(1) claim for the entry at issue (entry 20-2), which was liquidated on July 15, 1994, until July 25, 1995. In this case, protestant claims that the entry should have been reliquidated because Customs made an administrative error, in failing to include the entry 20-2 with the other three identified entries.

Protestant contends that "[t]he alleged error, mistake or omission was brought to Customs attention within one-year of liquidations of all the affected entries." See Protestant's brief dated September 11, 1994, pp. 3-4. Protestant also argues that the Notice of Action CF 29 referencing the subject entry, the Laboratory Reports, and the March 21, 1995 and the March 30, 1995 letters manifested this mistake as to the entry at issue (entry 20-2). However, courts have established that to determine sufficiency of a claim, consideration is limited to the facts presented on the face of the complaint and documents appended to or incorporated in the complaint by reference. See Degussa Canada Ltd. v. United States, 87 F.3d 1301 (C.A.F.C. 1996).

The relevant documents in the instant case are the March 21, 1995 and March 30, 1995 letters and its attachments, and the protest for reliquidation claimed under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1) designated file number 1703-95-200042, dated July 25, 1995. In reviewing the evidence presented and any documents attached or incorporated with that protest, the subject entry was not timely referenced. Please note that the Notice of Action in CF 29 dated June 29, 1994 does not constitute part of the complaint or protest.

It is important to note that 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1) states that a "protest must set forth distinctly and specifically each decision ... as to which protest is made; each category of merchandise...; and the nature of each objection and reasons therefor." The relevant implementing regulations contained in 19 C.F.R. 174.13(a) provide that a protest shall contain "[t]he number and date of the entry, ... [a] specific description of the merchandise affected by the decision as to which protest is made,...[t]he nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal, ... [and] ... with respect to [multiple] entries ... the entry numbers, dates of entry, and dates of liquidation of all such entries should be set forth as an attachment to the protest."

Courts have precluded importers from raising a new claim of "uniform existing practice" not specifically included in a timely protest, regardless of whether Customs was previously aware of an issue in connection with a protest containing multiple entries. See Washington International Insurance Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 600, 602-603 (1992), and CR Industries v. United States, 10 CIT 561, 565 (1986) (explaining that [t]he lack of notice in the protest may have led Customs to believe that the issue had been abandoned). Consequently, in the circumstances at hand, protestant failed to validly assert a challenge to the specific entry at issue.

An examination of the protest and the Laboratory Reports renders protestant's position unconvincing. Protestant claims that Customs was timely informed of the error for the entry at issue by reference. As stated in the FACTS portion of this ruling, neither the letters dated March 21, 1995 and March 30, 1995 requesting reliquidation, nor the Laboratory Reports, which were the basis for allowing reliquidation of the other three entries, reference entry 20-2.

The following text appears in the RE: line of the March 30, 1995 letter, which was simply a cover letter to a letter dated March 21, 1995 not received by Customs: "RE: Entry Numbers 110-17xxx00-0; 110-17xxx49-4; and 110-17xxx11-9; Request for Reliquidation Under 19 U.S.C. ?1520(c)." The March 21, 1995 letter contains the following text in the RE: line: "RE: Entry Numbers 110-17xxx00-0; 110-17xxx49-4; and 110-17xxx11-9; Request for Reliquidation Under 19 U.S.C. ?1520(c), Transmittal of Samples." The body of the letter dated March 21, 1995 states that reliquidation is requested for the "above-captioned entries." The March 21, 1995 letter contains a section called "Analysis of the Lab Reports and Worksheets." Under this section, protestant placed the following entries for each of the subsections: "A. Entry Number 110-17xxx00-0"; "B. Entry Number 110-17xxx11-9"; and "C. Entry Number 110-17xxx49-4." Protestant attached Laboratory Reports to the March 21, 1995 request for reliquidation. Each Laboratory Report attached to the request for reliquidation specifically identifies the relevant entry number for the merchandise evaluated, and none specify entry 20-2.

We find Pollak Import-Export Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 111 (1994) and Border Brokerage Co., Inc. v. United States, 72 Cust. Ct. 93, 372 F. Supp. 1389 (1974) dispositive. In both of these cases, the court found that entries not specifically enumerated in the protest were properly denied by Customs. Each entry, therefore, is treated as a distinct claim. In the case at hand, the protest submitted under the letters dated March 21, 1995 and March 30, 1995, simply did not distinctly and specifically set forth the entry at issue as the category of merchandise for which the classification, rate of duty, and liquidation was protested. By the express terms of 19 U.S.C. 1514, the liquidation became final and conclusive regarding the unprotested entry at issue, and the finality of the liquidation as to the merchandise was not reopened by the reliquidation of the other three entries or the filing of the subject protest against the reliquidation. See Tail Active Sportswear v. United States 16 CIT 504, 507 (1992) (holding that protestant failed to properly raise a specific issue for a specific entry thereby precluding him from raising a valid claim).

Furthermore, even if Customs improperly liquidated the subject entry, protestant is bound by the time limitations set forth under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) addressed a similar situation concerning section 1520(c)(1) in Omni U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 6 Fed. Cir. (T) 99 (1988). In Omni, Customs improperly liquidated certain entries. However, the importer did not alert Customs to the error it had committed within one year. The CAFC stated that "[t]his court has several times held that statutory procedures for administrative correction of errors ... are binding on all concerned, including time limitation within which valid actions may be taken." Omni p. 101. The CAFC went on to hold that "[s]ince nobody brought the errors to the attention of the appropriate customs officers within a year of the date of liquidation, authority to correct them lapsed according to the terms of section 1520(c)(1), the refusal by customs to correct them upon timely notice was correct, and was the only course open to them." Id. We find this decision supportive for determining that Customs does not possess authority to reliquidate the subject entry in this instance, because the subject protest was untimely filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1).

In the case at hand, protestant untimely filed the section 1520(c)(1) claim, since more than one year had elapsed between the date of liquidation and the filing of the subject protest. The subject entry was liquidated on July 15, 1994, and protestant did not raise the section 1520(c)(1) claim until July 25, 1995. Therefore, protestant's assertion that the subject entry was erroneously liquidated by Customs is inapplicable. Regardless of the fact that the original liquidation was erroneous, the subject protest was untimely filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514 and 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1).

HOLDING:

The request for reliquidation for the entry at issue was not file within one year after the date of liquidation. Protestant's request pursuant to 1520(c)(1) was properly denied as untimely.

Consistent with the decision set forth above, you are hereby directed to deny the subject protest. 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 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 the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision of 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,

Director,

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: