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 > 2004 HQ Rulings > HQ 967116 - HQ 967223 > HQ 967164

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 967164





July 13, 2004

CLA-2: RR:CR:TE 967164 KSH

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6204.52.2070; 6104.62.2011; 6104.52.0010

Area Director

JFK International Airport Area

C/O Chief, Liquidation and Protest Branch Building 77
JFK International Airport
Jamaica, New York 11430

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest 4701-03-101630

Dear Area Director:

This is in reply to your correspondence, dated March 22, 2004, forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 4701-03-101630, filed by Hodgson Russ LLP, on behalf of Nevada Apparels Corp.

FACTS:

The protest is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) demand for redelivery of merchandise.

On May 7, 2003, protestant entered 60 cartons of women’s skirts and trousers claimed to be country of origin Vietnam. In August, 2003, a Textile Production Verification Team conducted visits to Vietnam to verify country of origin claims. On October 29, 2003, CBP issued a notice to redeliver the merchandise within 30 days based upon information that the merchandise in the shipment was not made in Vietnam. On December 12, 2003, CBP issued a notice of penalty or liquidated damages incurred and demand for payment based on protestant’s failure to redeliver the merchandise and failing to adequately mark the merchandise with the country of origin. On December 23, 2003, protestant filed the instant protest and application for further review (AFR) protesting the demand for redelivery. Protestant’s AFR request was approved. The protest was timely filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514 (c)(3) and 19 C.F.R. 174.12 (e)(1).

In support of protestant’s application for further review, protestant alleges that although CBP has ruled on the propriety of a Notice of Redelivery of wearing apparel that is more than 30 days after the entry and release of merchandise it has yet to rule on whether in the absence of a request for additional information or having knowledge at the time of entry which it failed to advise the importer of regarding the manufacturer at the time of entry, notice to redeliver is proper. Further review is warranted pursuant to 19 CFR §§174.24(c) and 174.25.

ISSUE:

Whether the issuance of the redelivery notice was proper.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The Customs Regulations governing the recall of textiles and textile products released from CBP custody are found in 19 C.F.R. §141.113. Paragraph (b) of section 141.113 provides as follows:

For purposes of determining whether the country of origin of textiles and textile products subject to the provisions of §12.130 of this chapter has been accurately represented to Customs, the release from Customs custody of any such textile or textile product shall be deemed conditional during the 180-day period following the date of release. If the port director finds during the conditional release period that a textile or textile product is not entitled to admission into the commerce of the United States because the country of origin of the textile or textile product was not accurately represented to Customs, he shall promptly demand its return to Customs custody. Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph (h) of this section and §113.62(l)(1) of this chapter, a failure to comply with a demand for return to Customs custody made under this paragraph shall result in the assessment of liquidated damages equal to the value of the merchandise involved.

The background information on section 141.113(b), published in T.D. 94-95, Customs Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 50, December 14, 1994, makes clear that the regulation was adopted because of a significant enforcement problem regarding textiles and textile products that are imported into the United States in violation of quota restrictions or without the appropriate visa from the country of origin. Prior to the enactment of section 141.113, CBP was required to issue a Notice of Redelivery within 30 days of the release of the merchandise from CBP’s custody. See HQ 226089, dated February 9, 1996. However, most violations were not
discovered until after the close of the time period for issuance of a Notice of Redelivery. See HQ 226089 (cited above) and T.D. 94-95 (cited above). Accordingly, the 180-day conditional release period was specifically implemented to provide CBP with an opportunity to verify that country of origin claims are “accurately” represented to CBP.

The instant case falls squarely within the purview of 19 C.F.R. §141.113(b). The protestant claimed Vietnam as the country of origin but, after release of the merchandise, CBP discovered that the claimed country of origin was incorrect and demanded redelivery. The 180-day regulatory conditional release period commenced on the date the merchandise was released from CBP custody. CBP issued the Notice to Redeliver on October 29, 2003, well within the 180-day conditional release period. Accordingly, CBP’s demand for redelivery of the merchandise was proper.

In HQ 960409, dated October 24, 1997, CBP dealt with a similar protest against demands for redelivery of shipments of women’s wearing apparel. The Notice to Redeliver was made within the 180 day conditional release period. The ruling cited 19 C.F.R. §114.113 and stated:

The plain language of the above referenced regulation is clear on its face. The issue at hand addresses the country of origin of the subject merchandise and the manufacturing processes which occur in the claimed country of origin. In the case of the subject wearing apparel Customs had reason to believe that the claimed country of origin was incorrect. Thus, as explicitly stated in the regulation, Customs was well within its legal right to act upon the conditional release period mandated by the regulation.

Similarly, in the instant case, CBP was well within its legal right to act upon the conditional release period and demand redelivery.

Protestant argues that the request for redelivery made after the merchandise was released was unfair. Protestant also argues that because CBP did not request additional information to establish country of origin, CBP should have notified protestant that the country of origin of the merchandise was not Vietnam at the time of entry so that the protestant could have redelivered the merchandise or presented evidence that the merchandise was made in Vietnam. We understand Protestant’s contention that requesting the documents after the release of merchandise put them in a difficult situation. However, 19 C.F.R. §141.113 puts an importer of textile products on notice that any release of merchandise is conditional and that the merchandise may be subject to additional scrutiny and possible redelivery for 180 days after release.

19 C.F.R. §12.130, states that a port director may request additional information if he is unable to determine the country of origin. However, there is no requirement that a request for additional information be made before demanding redelivery nor is there any requirement that CBP notify an importer at the time of entry that the claimed country of origin is incorrect. In the instant case, a Textile Production Verification Team visited Vietnam after entry of the merchandise was made. It clearly would have been impossible for CBP to notify protestant at the time of entry that the country of origin of the merchandise was not Vietnam. Moreover, based on the information obtained by CBP during its visit to Vietnam, the port director found, during the conditional release period, that the merchandise was not entitled to admission into the commerce of the United States because the country of origin of the textile or textile product was not accurately represented and properly demanded its return to CBP’s custody. There was sufficient evidence supporting a false claim of country of origin such that it was not necessary to request additional information from the protestant. Protestant was given the opportunity to redeliver the merchandise within 30 days of the notice but failed to do so.

HOLDING:

The protest and application for further review should be denied in full.

In accordance with the Protest/Petition Processing Handbook, (CIS HB, January 2002, pp 18 and 21), 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 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 CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.

Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: