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 > 2001 HQ Rulings > HQ 963221 - HQ 963685 > HQ 963337

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 963337




November 21, 2000

CLA-2-42: RR: CR:TE 963337 JFS

Category: CLASSIFICATION

Port Director
U. S. Customs Service
1624 E. 7th Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33605

RE: Request for Further Review of Protest Number 1801-97-100070

Dear Sir or Madam:

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

The protestant's request for further review may be summarily disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the administrative record, and the protestant has not presented any evidence in support of its bald assertions. The Customs Service will not grant further review of a blanket protest. The protestant 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., 62 C.C.P.A. 76, 514 F. 2d 1052, C.A.D. 1149 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 98, 173 F. Supp. 812, C.D. 2072 (1959); United States v. E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A. 89, C.A.D. 291 (1944).

In this protest, the protestant files a "protective protest" against Customs decision to "reclassify and/or reappraise the subject entry", "deny drawback", "assess antidumping or countervailing duties, marking duties, vessel repair duties, or any other special duties, charges or exaction, including but not limited to interest." The protest also protests "the untimely liquidation or reliquidation and/or unlawful suspension or extension of liquidation as notification was inadequately issued", and "any clerical error or mistake of fact made on the subject entry." The protestant "protests the liability of the subject liquidations [on the basis that] [s]urety presently has no information indicating that [the protestant surety] is in fact the surety on the bond(s) used to secure the merchandise in question."

The Customs Regulations require that a protest set forth "[t]he nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal." 19 C.F.R. §174.13 (a) (6) The Customs Service has and will continue to fully consider all relevant allegations in a protest supported by competent evidence. However, when ruling on a protest, Customs cannot and will not assume facts that are not presented. Head quarters Ruling (HQ) 227411, dated May 29, 1997.

The entry was liquidated by Customs under subheadings 4202.92.3030, 4202.92.4500, and 4202.92.9060 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Other than in the “Protective Protest,” the protestant has not specifically stated that it is protesting the classification and has offered no opinion as to the proper classification of the merchandise. Nor has the protestant provided any reasons why the classification by Customs was incorrect. In order to entertain the protest, Customs would have to speculate that the basis of the protest is that the merchandise should have been classified as entered by the importer. Customs is not required to guess at what is being protested. HQ 961857, dated April 15, 1999.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1514, the surety had ninety days after the demand for payment to identify and explain protestable issues. However, the surety failed to meet the limited requirement that the protest distinctly and specifically describe the decision protested and the reasons therefor.

HOLDING:

A “Protective Protest” as described under the facts, which does not distinctly and specifically describe the decision that is protested, and does not provide objections and reasons for protesting a decision, does not meet the criteria for further review as outlined in § 174.24 of the Customs Regulations. 19 C.F.R. §174.24. Furthermore, the application for further review should not have been approved and the protest should be denied because the protestant has not complied with the requirements of 19 U.S.C. §1514 (c) (1) and 19 C.F.R. §174.13 (a) (6). See HQ 227411, dated May 29, 1997, and HQ 223267, dated June 20, 1991. See also, Koike Aronson, Inc. v. U.S., 165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir., January 5, 1999).

In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, Revised Protest Directive, dated August 4, 1993, a copy of this decision attached to Customs Form 19, Notice of Action, should be provided by your office to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this decision. Since there are no reliquidations involved in this protest, you should be able to accomplish this direction prior to the 60 day period.

Sixty days from the date of this decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make this decision available to Customs personnel, and to the general 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 public access channels

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: