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 546588 - HQ 561395 > HQ 547541

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 547541

---

January 28, 2000

RR: IT: VA 547541 DWS

CATEGORY: VALUATION

Port Director of Customs
P.O. Box 3130
Laredo, TX 78044
RE: Protest 2304-99-100084
Dear Port Director:

This regards Protest 2304-99-100084, dated October 8, 1998, concerning the validity of the protest and whether the protestant has filed a protestable action.

FACTS:

The protest involves the proper classification and appraisement of fresh broccoli. However, the protestant claims that the surety listed on the Customs Form (“CF”) 19 is not actually the surety involved in the protest. The surety listed is Intercargo Insurance Company (“Intercargo”) (surety #422). In its memorandum in support of the protest, the protestant states the following:

[s]urety herein protest the liability of the subject liquidations. Surety presently has no information available indicating that Intercargo Insurance Company (422) is in fact the surety on the bond(s) used to secure the merchandise in question.

We note that, as well as being listed on the CF 19, the Customs “Formal Demand On Surety” letter is addressed to Intercargo, and the CF 7501 Customs invoice also refers to Intercargo. Therefore, for the purposes of this protest, all the documentation presented to us states that Intercargo is the proper surety.

ISSUE:

Whether a claim by a protestant that a certain party is not the proper surety, in light of evidence to the contrary, is a protestable action.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

In part, 19 U.S.C. 1514(c) states:

(C) Form, number, and amendment of protest; filing of protest

(1) A protest of a decision made under subsection (a) of this section shall be filed in writing, or transmitted electronically pursuant to an electronic data interchange system, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. A protest must set forth distinctly and specifically -

(A) each decision described in subsection (a) of this section as to which protest is made;

(B) each category of merchandise affected by each decision set forth under paragraph (1);

(C) the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor; and

(D) any other matter required by the Secretary by regulation.

Based upon a review of the documentation we find that the protestant has not fulfilled the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1514(c), in that the protestant has not set forth the nature of its objections and the reasons for those objections. Although the protestant claims that Intercargo is not the proper surety, all of the provided documentation clearly demonstrates that Intercargo is the proper surety. The protestant has not provided any evidence to substantiate its claim. Therefore, because the protestant’s claim with regard to the proper surety is not a protestable action, it is our position that the protest is invalid.

HOLDING:

The claim by the protestant that a certain party is not the proper surety, in light of evidence to the contrary, is not a protestable action.

The protest should be DENIED in full. 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.ustreas.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.

Sincerely,
Thomas L. Lobred
Chief, Value Branch


Previous Ruling Next Ruling