HQ 228369 - Application for further review protest no. 5301-98-100102; 19 U.S.C. §1313(j)(1); notice of intent to export; transportation entry; exportation; pedimento;19 CFR 191.141(b) (prior to 1998 revision); 19 CFR 191.35; 19 CFR 191.36; 19 CFR 191.72 - 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 > 2000 HQ Rulings > HQ 228272 - HQ 546534 > HQ 228369

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 228369

February 1, 2000

DRA-2-02-RR-CR-DR 228369 IOR

CATEGORY: DRAWBACK

Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
2350 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. E. Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77032-3126

RE: Application for further review protest no. 5301-98-100102; 19 U.S.C. §1313(j)(1); notice of intent to export; transportation entry; exportation; pedimento;19 CFR 191.141(b) (prior to 1998 revision); 19 CFR 191.35; 19 CFR 191.36; 19 CFR 191.72

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:

The protest is against the denial of drawback for two drawback entries, each corresponding to one import entry. The drawback claimant, the protestant, entered 692 containers, total gross weight of 5463 kilograms, of tomatoes by entry 699-xxxx460-7 dated February 2, 1996, and 880 containers, total gross weight of 6459 kilograms, of tomatoes by entry 699-xxxx624-8 dated February 5, 1996. The dates of exportation from Mexico and importation were January 30, 1996 and February 2, 1996, respectively. There is a pro-forma invoice for each entry, for tomatoes shipped by Jose Saracho to the protestant. The date of the invoice corresponds to the date of importation of the merchandise. The invoice for the January 30 importation is for a total of 692 cartons of tomatoes, at a total weight of 749 kilograms, including 627 cartons of "SM CT GRNHOUSE TOMATOE". The invoice for the February 2 importation is for a total of 880 cartons of tomatoes, at a total weight of 1004 kilograms, including 770 cartons of "SM CT GRNHOUSE TOMATOE". According to Customs officers at Nogales, importations are processed and released upon entry, and the imported merchandise proceeded to the protestant’s warehouse in Nogales.

There are Transportation entries (CF 7512's) corresponding to each entry, dated February 6, 1996, indicating that merchandise was entered or imported by the protestant on the dates indicated on the CF 7501’s, and was shipped in bond, the final destination being Mexico, the consignee being Jose Saracho. The merchandise is described as "627. SM CTGRNHOUSE TOMATOE" at 6.36 kg. on the CF 7512 corresponding to the January 30 importation and "770. SM CTGRNHOUSE TOMATOE" at 5.9kg on the CF 7512 corresponding to the February 2, 1996 importation. On each CF 7512, at the bottom of the column containing the description of the merchandise, a typed note states:

Rejected by importer
Drawback certification
Sealing waived--responsibility accepted by carrier

Each CF 7512 is certified that the described merchandise was laden on the truck trailer described therein, which cleared for Mexico on February 6, 1996 “as verified by export records”. Both 7512’s identify the same trailer (BH21) as being used on the same day, February 6, 1996. It is unclear whether the 627 cartons of tomatoes asserted to have been entered under consumption entry 699-xxxx460-7, and the 770 cartons of tomatoes asserted to have been entered under consumption entry 699-xxxx624-8 were carried together or were the subject of two different trips on the same day with the same trailer. The certifications are dated February 6, 1996, and provide the Customs inspector’s initials, “M F”. Customs officers at Nogales identified the initials “M.F.” as those of a former Customs aide, Maria Fajardo, who is no longer with Customs. Customs officers at Nogales informed us that the examination area is about 200 feet from the border and that a truck is under constant observation until it crosses the border. The CF 7512’s are not date stamped, nor is there any signature for the District Director. Each CF 7512 indicates the class of entry as an "I.E." (immediate exportation).

Drawback entries, CF 7539's, 699-xxxx714-7 and 699-xxxx713-9 were dated February 7, 1996, and stamped as having been received February 13, 1996 in Nogales and February 20, 1996 by Houston Drawback, claiming same condition drawback for 627 cartons of "grnhouse tomatoes" and 770 cartons of "grnhouse tomatoes" respectively. In blocks 43 through 53, on the CF 7539, none of the blocks pertaining to examination, either waiving examination or requiring examination have been completed.

By letter dated March 9, 1998, the Houston Drawback Center requested the protestant to provide proof of export stating:

Proof of export required, in bond documents do not prove export. Mexican Pedimentos must be "Desaduanisadas".

You are claiming direct identification, please support the above claims. How are these exports identified per import?

In response, by letter dated March 23, 1998, the protestant’s broker sent a copy of the Mexican Pedimento to Houston Drawback. There is one Mexican Import Pedimento for both drawback entries. The pedimento indicates February 6, 1996 as the date of entry, the protestant as the supplier, and Jose Carlos de Saracho Calderon as the importer. The pedimento is stamped indicating that the duties were paid on February 6, 1996. The pedimento does not have the inspection stamp indicating that the the merchandise was in fact imported into Mexico. For the type of importation, the pedimento indicates "K1", which means the merchandise was not accepted by U.S. Customs and is being returned to Mexico. The merchandise is described as "Tomate" and has various numbers pertaining to it, however none of the numbers correspond to the quantities and weights of the tomatoes provided on the other documents. The pedimento describes the tomatoes as “12,213”. The bottom of the pedimento does state, in Spanish, that the returned merchandise consists of merchandise that had previously been exported from Mexico under three different pedimento numbers, and provides the weight of the merchandise for each export, and the date of each pedimento. The weights and dates repectively are 5062 kilos on January 22, 1996, 3470 kilos on January 22, 1996, and 3681 kilos on January 25, 1996, for a total kilo weight of 12,213. We have confirmed that export pedimentos do exist for merchandise exported from Mexico.

By letter dated March 27, 1998, Customs sent a letter to the protestant’s broker stating that the drawback entries have been liquidated with no drawback, stating the reason was failure to comply with 19 CFR Subpart N 191.141, failure to establish fact of exportation under 19 CFR 191.51(c)(2), and failure to support a claim under direct identification for export to Mexico under an approved accounting method. The drawback entries were liquidated with no drawback on April 17, 1998.

This protest and application for further review was filed on May 1, 1998. The reason for protest was stated as follows by the protestant:

Upon advise of local Customs (Nogales, Az.), we filed CF 7512 and exported the merchandise. Since merchandise is highly perishable, it was not presented 5 days prior to exportation. Enclosed is the signed CF-7512 and the Mexican Pedimento as proof of export.

According to your submission, a query of the CF 7512's in ACS indicates that they were never initiated into the system. With regard to examination, you state that the signature on the CF 7512 does not verify that the merchandise was examined, therefore the filing of the CF 7512 does not satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 141(a)(b)(2). Further it is your position that the Mexican Pedimento is missing the necessary stamps to establish exportation.

In a memorandum from the Port Director at Nogales, dated May 14, 1999, it is stated that Customs in Nogales was not aware when the CF 7512's were filed that drawback would be claimed on the basis of the exportation of the tomatoes, and that the protestants broker was not advised to export the merchandise without following established drawback procedures. The memorandum also states that the Port Director has no doubt that the tomatoes on the CF 7512’s were exported.

According to a telephone conversation with the protestant’s broker, the imported merchandise was rejected by the protestant and returned to the Mexican supplier, as indicated on the CF 7512.

ISSUE:

Whether for purposes of 19 U.S.C. §1313(j)(1), the protestant met the requirement of filing a notice of intent to export by filing an inbond transportation entry (CF 7512), and whether exportation of the imported merchandise has been established.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Initially, we note that the protest was timely filed under the statutory and regulatory provisions for protests (see 19 U.S.C. §1514 and 19 C.F.R. Part 174). We note that the refusal to pay a claim for drawback is a protestable issue under 19 U.S.C. §1514(a)(6). This protest involves the denial of drawback under 19 U.S.C. §1313(j)(1).

Section 313(j)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1313(j)(1)), provides for a refund of duties on imported merchandise, exported or destroyed under Customs’ supervision, within three years from the date of importation, and not used within the U.S. before such exportation or destruction. Prior to the amendment of the drawback statute by section 632, title VI Customs Modernization, Pub. L. No. 103182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation (“NAFTA”) Act (107 Stat. 2057), enacted December 8, 1993, an additional requirement under section 1313(j) was that the merchandise be in the same condition as when it was imported.

At the time the CF 7512's and CF 7539's were filed, the requirements for filing and documentation prior to exportation were set forth in 19 C.F.R. §191.141(b):

(b) Filing and documentation prior to exportation (1) Filing. An exporterclaimant who desires to export merchandise with drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j) shall file with the drawback office a completed Customs Form 7539. The exporterclaimant also shall furnish a copy of the import entry or identify the import entry, date of entry, and port of entry under which the merchandise was imported into the United States. It shall certify that the merchandise is in the same condition as when imported and not used within the United States before such exportation. Transfers shall be documented by certificates of delivery (see §191.65).

(2)(i) Time of filing. The completed Customs Form 7539 shall be filed with the drawback office at least 5 working days prior to the date of intended exportation of the merchandise, unless the Customs officer approves a shorter filing period.

(ii) Waiver of prior notice of intent to export. A request for a waiver of prior notice by an exporterclaimant shall be in writing to the drawback office. The appropriate Customs officer may waive prior notice at any time for any exporterclaimant. An exporterclaimant shall be granted this waiver after filing with the appropriate Customs official six consecutive claims free of substantial error, provided that such exporterclaimant has operated under the same condition program for a minimum of six months. An exporterclaimant who repeatedly files inaccurate claims may have the privilege (of filing without prior notice) revoked. Customs will so notify the exporterclaimant in writing of the revocation as soon as possible.

(3) Examination (i) Decision to examine. Within 3 working days after Customs Form 7539 is filed, the exporterclaimant shall be notified whether Customs will examine the merchandise. If the exporterclaimant is not notified within the 3day period, the exporterclaimant shall export the merchandise without delay.

The Customs Regulations pertaining to drawback were revised (the proposed revised regulations were published in the Federal Register (62 FR 3082), on January 21, 1997, and were the subject of considerable comment and consideration, and responses to the comments were published with the final rule document) (63 FR 10970), on March 5, 1998. The current regulations set forth the requirements for filing and documentation prior to exportation, in section 191.35 as follows:

(a) Notice. A notice of intent to export merchandise which may be the subject of an unused merchandise drawback claim (19 U.S.C. 1313(j)) must be provided to the Customs Service to give Customs the opportunity to examine the merchandise. The claimant, or the exporter, must file at the port of intended examination a Notice of Intent to Export, Destroy, or Return Merchandise for Purposes of Drawback on Customs Form 7553 at least 2 working days prior to the date of intended exportation unless Customs approves another filing period or the claimant has been granted a waiver of prior notice (see §191.91 of this part).

(b) Required Information. The notice shall certify that the merchandise has not been used in the United States before exportation. In addition, the notice shall provide the bill of lading number, if known, the name and telephone number, mailing address, and, if available, fax number and email address of a contact person, and the location of the merchandise.

The immediate exportation (“I.E.”) procedure is a type of in-bond movement. The I.E. contemplates the exportation of foreign-origin unentered merchandise, and is intended to be of limited application. The I.E. is applicable to the exportation of merchandise from a port following arrival of the merchandise in that same port. Frequently the I.E. is employed for the exportation of merchandise which is first imported into the U.S. at a particular port of arrival, is refused entry for some reason and is to be exported directly from the limits of the same port. See HQ 113986, dated June 17, 1997. The purpose of the I.E. is not to inspect the merchandise for purposes of drawback. The CF 7512, I.E., merely certifies that the merchandise arrived at the port of exportation. See HQ 205989, dated July 1, 1976.

Unlike a notice of intent to export, the I.E. does not provide Customs with the opportunity to examine the merchandise to determine that it is the merchandise which was imported and that the merchandise was not used in the U.S. The failure to file the proper notice, deprives the Government of the ability to verify the identity of the merchandise being exported, and the condition of the merchandise (i.e. that it has not been used), for purposes of the drawback statute. See e.g. Swan Tricot Mills Corp. v. U.S., 63 Cust. Ct. 530, C.D. 3948 (1969); C.S.D. 86-25, citing U.S. v. Lockheed Petroleum Services, 1 Ct. Appls. Fed. Cir. 63, 709 F.2d 1472 (1983); HQ 224133, dated April 19, 1993; HQ 220099, dated September 1, 1988.

It is well established that drawback laws confer a privilege, not a right. Swan & Finch Company v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 23 Sup. Ct. 702 (1903). When merchandise is imported and a drawback statute may potentially be applicable, an accruing or inchoate right may be said to arise. However, the right to recover drawback ripens only when all provisions of the statute and applicable regulations prescribed under its authority have been met. Guess? Incorporated v. United States, 944 F.2d 855 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Romar Trading Co., Inc. v. United States, 27 Cust. Ct. 34 (1951); General Motors Corporation v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 94 (1954). Drawback claimants must strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the statutes and applicable regulations, and the. United States v. W. C. Hardesty Co, Inc., 36 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 396 (1949); Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.) v. United States, 13 CCPA 612 (1926). The regulations requiring notice of intent to export are mandatory, and compliance with the regulations is a condition precedent to the right to recover drawback. See id., and W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States, 15 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 953 (1937).

Therefore, as the purpose of the I.E. is distinct from that of a notice of intent to export, and the drawback requirements are not met either in form or substance, the filing of the I.E. does not fulfill the requirement of a notice of intent to export.

Section 191.35 also provides for Customs to waive examination. In section, 191.36, the regulations provide for the failure to file notice of intent to export for purposes of drawback. The regulation requires the claimant that failed to file the requisite notice of intent to apply for eligibility for drawback. In summary, the application must be written and is required to include the following:

(A)Name, address, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number (with suffix) of applicant; (B) Name, address, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number(s) (with suffix) of exporter(s), if applicant is not the exporter; (C) Export period covered by this application; (D) Commodity/product lines of imported and exported merchandise covered in this application; (E) The origin of the above merchandise;
(F) Estimated number of export transactions covered in this application; (G) Estimated number of drawback claims and estimated time of filing those claims to be covered in this application; (H) The port(s) of exportation;
(I) Estimated dollar value of potential drawback to be covered in this application; and (J) The relationship between the parties involved in the import and export transactions;

The application must also include written declarations regarding:

(A) The reason(s) that Customs was not notified of the intent to export; and (B) Whether the applicant, to the best of its knowledge, will have future exportations on which unused merchandise drawback might be claimed; and

Finally the application must also include a certification that documentation that the requirements of section 1313(j) specifically and drawback generally have been met will be made available for Customs review upon request. The regulations also provide that this application procedure may be used by a claimant only once, unless good cause is shown (for example, successorship). In making its decision to approve or deny the application under this section, Customs will consider factors such as the information provided by the claimant in the written application and the information in the written certifications, and the applicant's prior record with Customs.

From our review of the protest, it appears that most of the information required in the application set forth in items (A) through (J) above is included in the protest, except that we do not know if there are other similar protests pending, and the protest does not indicate the relationship between the protestant and Mexican supplier. The protest does not include a declaration as to whether unused merchandise drawback might be claimed in the future and there is no certification that documentary evidence is available for Customs review to establish that the general drawback requirements were met and that the requirements of section 1313(j) in particular were met. The application is to be filed with the drawback office were the drawback claims are to be filed, and in the event of a denial, the first appeal is to be filed with the office which issues the denial. In the event the first appeal is denied, the matter is to be submitted to Headquarters, Office of Trade Operations. The subject protest has not been considered as an application for waiver under the regulation in section 191.36, by the appropriate Customs offices. Moreover, Customs is of the position that no compliance short of actual compliance can be regarded as sufficient compliance, and substantial compliance is not sufficient where full compliance is required. See HQ 221489, dated February 20, 1990, citing Swan Tricot Mills Corp. v. U.S., 63 Cust. Ct. 530, C.D. 3948 (1969), and Swift and Co. v. U.S., 10 Cust. Ct. 198, C.D. 753 (1943), reh. den. 11 Cust. Ct. 321, abs. 49029 (1943). Therefore, we are not permitted to accept a protest which contains some of the information required, as being an application for a waiver in substance, if it is not submitted in the form of an application for a waiver that the drawback office is aware it must act upon.

Under the regulations prior to their revision, under 19 CFR 191.141, the appropriate Customs office could waive the requirement of prior notice of intent to export at any time, including retroactive waivers. See C.S.D. 88-14. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, Customs Headquarters would not substitute its judgment for that of the appropriate field office. Id. See also, HQ 222609, dated November 7, 1990. In HQ 226413, dated January 6, 1997, Customs stated that the request for a waiver must be in writing. In this case, there is no evidence that a request for waiver was made in writing or otherwise. The CF 7512’s do include the words “drawback certification”, however, it is not apparent from the facts what is the purpose or meaning of those words on the CF 7512’s. Apparently it was not sufficient to alert Customs that the merchandise would become the subject of a drawback entry, although it should have been questioned at the time by Customs officers. If the notation was either intended or perceived to be a request for a waiver of prior notice, no waiver of prior notice was ever granted by Customs.

In HQ 226413, supra, we granted a protest of a denial of drawback where the claimant had failed to file a notice of intent to export prior to the exportation and had not requested a waiver. Taking the position that a claimant is permitted to request a waiver of prior notice of intent to export at any time, including before or after export, the protest was granted subject to the protestant meeting numerous conditions. The conditions included submission of a written request for waiver to the appropriate drawback office, and the drawback office must act on the request exercising reasonable discretion (only if the waiver were granted would the protest be granted). In that case, the exportations had occurred less than three years from the date of the protest decision, and the request for waiver was unquestionably timely.

We may next examine whether the protestant may still be entitled to drawback under the current regulations, if it were to file an application for waiver as provided in 19 CFR 191.36. However, even if it were determined that the protestant was entitled to apply for a waiver of notice of intent to export under the current regulations, and that the filing of the application is allowable as a perfection of a drawback claim under 19 CFR 191.52(b) (as of the date of this decision, more than three years have passed since the asserted date of exportation of the merchandise), and that the drawback office would approve the application and allow the waiver, the protestant would still not be entitled to drawback without sufficient evidence of exportation, as provided for in 19 CFR 191.72 (at the time the drawback entry was filed the existing regulation was 19 CFR 191.51 and 191.52).

Prior to the revision of the regulations, section 191.52(c)(2) set forth the types of documents that are evidence of exportation “such as the bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, cargo manifest, or certified copies thereof, issued by the exporting carrier.” Section 191.52 stated “[s]upporting documentary evidence shall establish fully the time and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter.” Section 181.47(c) which provides for completion of claims for drawback, under NAFTA, provides that the Mexican entry document, the “pedimento” is evidence of exportation to Mexico (section 181.47 is applicable to merchandise exported to Mexico on or after January 1, 2001).

The current regulations provide for evidence of exportation in section 191.72 as follows:

Exportation of articles for drawback purposes shall be established by complying with one of the procedures provided for in this section (in addition to providing prior notice of intent to export if applicable (see §§191.35, 191.36, 191.42, and 191.91 of this part)). Supporting documentary evidence shall establish fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter. The procedures for establishing exportation outlined by this section include, but are not limited to: (a) Actual evidence of exportation consisting of documentary evidence, such as an originally signed bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest, or certified copies thereof, issued by the exporting carrier;...(emphasis added).

In this case, a pedimento would be sufficient evidence of exportation, however for two reasons, the pedimento submitted is insufficient to establish exportation for drawback. First, the pedimento does not describe the merchandise in any way that corresponds to other information regarding the tomatoes, and it is not evident that the tomatoes identified on the pedimento are the same as were identified on the CF 7501’s and 7512’s or even the drawback entries. Moreover, the pedimento expressly states that it pertains to 12,213 kilos of merchandise exported from Mexico on January 22 and 25, 1996. According to the 7501’s submitted, the merchandise on which drawback is claimed was exported from Mexico on January 30, and February 2, 1996, and had a total gross weight of 11,922 kilograms. The invoices accompanying the 7501’s have different total weights from those on the 7501’s, although the quantities are consistent. The weight inconsistency combined with the express reference to different specific exportations from Mexico makes it clear that the pedimento submitted has nothing to do with either the imported merchandise on which drawback is claimed or the merchandise which is the subject of the CF 7512’s.

Second, even if the pedimento did pertain to the same tomatoes as those that were imported, the pedimento is missing the inspection stamp. The pedimento does have the duty stamp, but without the inspection stamp, the duty stamp alone is insufficient evidence of exportation. Mexican duties are required to be paid three days prior to the shipment crossing into Mexico by vehicle, and if for any reason the shipment does not cross into Mexico, the duties can be credited to another shipment. Therefore, evidence of payment of duties alone on the pedimento is not evidence of exportation into Mexico. No other documentation is provided to prove that the merchandise was in fact exported to Mexico, such as freight bills of lading, freight bills and delivery receipts.

The CF 7512 (“I.E.”) itself, in this case does not provide sufficient evidence of exportation. The presence of the initials on the I.E. show that Customs performed some supervision over the exportation, although the extent of the supervision or even whether there were one or two exportations is not shown. See e.g. Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States, 23 Cust. Ct. 124 (1949). Customs officers are presumed to perform their assigned duty correctly. See, United States v. International Importers, Inc., 55 CCPA 43, 53 (1968). At most, Ms. Fajardo can be presumed to verify the quantity and the identity of the cargo presented and that the truck carrying that cargo crossed the border. Since there is no evidence to show that she possessed knowledge of the identity of the import entries, she cannot be presumed to have determined that the cargo was the same cargo which had been entered under the two import entries.

In the case of Swan Tricot Mills Corporation v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 530, C.D. 3948 (1969), the court held that a Customs inspector who verified the identity and quantity of bobbins exported to satisfy a temporary Importation Under Bond entry could not be held also to have verified the identity and quantity of yarn on the bobbins for drawback purposes since that was not part of his assigned duty.

As stated above, the pedimento presented by the claimant’s broker to establish exportation of the tomatoes shows that other tomatoes, not involved in either consumption entry here were returned to Mexico by the same shipper, through Nogales on the same day, February 6, 1996. That pedimento asserts that tomatoes which were exported from Mexico in three shipments on January 22, 1996 (two shipments) and January 25, 1996 were being returned for failure of acceptance into U.S. commerce. The dates of export from Mexico, weights and prices bear no resemblance to the tomatoes covered by the two import entries here. The presence of that pedimento does show that returns to Mexico were not unique since it and the two I.E.’s covered movements of tomatoes through Nogales on the same day by the same party.

Consequently, it would be inappropriate to expand the presumption that Ms. Fajardo not only verified the identity and quantities of cargo, but also determined that they were the same tomatoes imported under the two consumption entries on which drawback is claimed.

Generally, I.E.’s are input into ACS, and upon notice from the broker that the merchandise has been exported, Customs closes the I.E. in ACS. As the I.E. was never input into ACS, it was never closed. However, even if the I.E. had been entered and then subsequently closed in ACS, for the reasons stated above, the I.E. does not establish exportation of the tomatoes designated in the drawback entry.

Because there is insufficient evidence of exportation, we do not reach the question of whether a waiver of prior notice of exportation could be allowed in this case, and the protest should be denied.

We note that the imported tomatoes were apparently rejected, however we do not have any information on the reason for the rejection. Customs Regulations 19 CFR 158.45, provide for the refund of duties for certain merchandise upon its exportation under Customs supervision, if it has been in continuous Customs custody, or if released from Customs custody, if it is prohibited merchandise and entered in good faith. According to the port, the merchandise was released from Customs custody on the date it entered the U.S., and we have no information which would otherwise support the application of 19 CFR 158.45 to the subject facts.

HOLDING:

For purposes of 19 U.S.C. §1313(j)(1), the protestant did not meet the requirement of filing a notice of intent to export by filing an inbond transportation entry (CF 7512), and exportation of the imported merchandise has not been established.

The protest should be DENIED. In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision.

Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.customs. gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.

Sincerely,

John Durant

Previous Ruling Next Ruling