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 > 2002 HQ Rulings > HQ 547487 - HQ 561808 > HQ 547929

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 547929




April 8, 2002

RR:IT:VA 547929 MMC

CATEGORY: VALUATION

Port Director of Customs
610 South Canal Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607
ATT: D. Derer, I.S.

RE: Protest 3901-00-100608

Dear Port Director:

This letter is in response to your March 15, 2001 memorandum regarding an Application for Further Review (AFR) of Protest number 3901-00-100608, submitted on behalf of Prada B.V., importer of record, by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman. The protest pertains to 2 entries dated October 21, and November 29, 1999. The merchandise was entered on November 4 and 29th of 1999. The entries were liquidated on February 25, 2000. Counsel asserts that the subject merchandise was improperly appraised based on Customs' improper assumption that the entered value was stated in U.S. dollars when in fact, it was stated in Italian Lira.

FACTS:

The following documents were provided for our review:

Undated AFR (CF 19): Section I of the CF 19 indicates the protest number, district, importer number, importer name but not address, 2 entry numbers date of entry and date of liquidation. Box 2 of this section is identified as "DATE RECEIVED (Customs Use Only)." No date appears in the box. Section II of the CF 19 details the reasons for the protest:
we hereby protest Customs' reappraisement of the subject merchandise covered by the referenced entries based on the assumption that the stated prices are in US dollars. In all instances the currencies were stated in Italian Lira

Protestant requested that action on the protest be withheld pending submission of revised pro forma invoice documents that clearly set forth the Italian Lira price. Section V is for the application for further review. Protestant answers no to all 3 questions asked and then in box 15 states as its justification for further review that this
matter has not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or the Customs court. Section VI is entitled Decision (Customs use only). It indicates that the AFR is approved and states "entries were appraised, entered and liquidated at Italian Lira as request by attorney/importer DJ Steffes 2-27-01".

An August 3, 2000, Customs Protest and Summons Information Report (CF 6445A): It provides much of the same information as appears on the CF 19. In addition however, it indicates that the importer's position was that the attorney claims that the merchandise should be appraised using the Italian Lira at the appropriate rate of exchange, and that this is what the port did: "merchandise was appraised at Italian Lira exchanged at the appropriate rate of Exchange." In addition, in box 29 of the form the import specialist notes that "the additional duties on these entries were the result of a misclassification of man-made fiber jackets/parts. The importer/attorney did not protest the classification change."

3. An entry summary (CF 7501) for each of the 2 entries that are the subject of the AFR: Both entry summaries have a paper attached to them which indicates the original paid amount of duty, the liquidated amount and the increase. Under the "reason code" section for the rate advance reason number 1 "tariff/other" has been circled. We note that reason number 4 "value/other", was not circled. On one of the CF 7501s the duty rate of 7.4% is crossed out and replaced with 28.8% increasing the amount of duties from $78.44 to $305.28. This increase is the exact amount shown by Customs on the attachment for this entry.

4. October 25, 2000, e-mail from the import specialist to importer's counsel: In pertinent part the e-mail indicates that the import specialist needs the corrected invoices to process the protest filed. It further indicates that as discussed the invoices needed to be supplied by November 30, 2000, and if not received by then, the protested entries would be denied. The protest file forwarded to our office contains no invoices.

ISSUE:

Whether protestant has shown that the appraised value was incorrect.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The statutory authority for applications for further review is found in 19 U.S.C. § 1515(a) which provides that, upon application by the protestant, a protest may be subject to further review under the circumstances and in the form and manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations. The Customs Regulations issued under this provision are found in 19 CFR §§ 174.23 - 174.27. Section 174.24(b) sets out one of the criteria for further review, i.e., an allegation that the decision protested involves questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner or his designee or by the Customs courts. Section 174.25 provides for the contents required in an application for further review, including "[a] statement of any facts or additional legal arguments, not part of the record, upon which the protesting party relies, including the criterion set forth in 174.24 which justifies further review."

As stated in the factual portion of this ruling, the pertinent documents indicate that Customs did liquidate the merchandise based on the Italian Lira price converted to US dollars. Furthermore, the documents indicate that the increase in duties was due to a rate advance resulting from a reclassification of the merchandise. There is nothing that indicates that Customs increased the value of the goods. In short, protestant has not submitted any evidence to support its claim that the increase in duties resulted from a Customs' improper assumption that the entered value was stated in U.S. dollars.

HOLDING:

Based on the foregoing evidence, and in light of the fact that the protestant failed to submit any documentation to substantiate its claims, we find that the protest is without merit. Therefore, 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 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,

Virginia L. Brown, Chief
Value Branch


Previous Ruling Next Ruling