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 > 2005 HQ Rulings > HQ 967415 - HQ 967545 > HQ 967487

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 967487




May 26, 2005

CLA-2: RR:CR:TE 967487 ASM

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 8708.80.4500

Port Director
Customs and Border Protection
Port of Chicago
610 S. Canal St.
Room 306
Chicago, Illinois 60607

RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-04-101300, concerning the classification of shock absorber parts

Dear Port Director:

The above-captioned protest was timely filed on September 10, 2004, against your decision in the classification and liquidation under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) of shock absorber parts entered at the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) port of Chicago, Illinois. No sample has been provided.

FACTS:

The subject merchandise is identified by the importer as “Bellows for Airsprings” (Invoice) and as “Auto or Truck Shock Absorbers or Parts, No. 1 – Bellows for Airsprings” (Intermodal Certificate). However, CBP believes that the subject articles are parts of truck suspensions. Further, CBP has determined that these articles may be parts of suspension shock absorbers, parts of bodies, parts of steering systems, or parts of seats. The importer failed to respond to CBP’s request to provide additional information on this product.

The CBP port of Chicago liquidated the merchandise on June 25, 2004, and classified the subject merchandise in subheading 8708.80.4500, HTSUSA, which provides for “Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705: Suspension shock absorbers: For other vehicles: Other.”

The Protestant, Bridgestone Firestone Inc., filed a protest with an application for further review asserting that the merchandise is classifiable in subheading 8708.99.8080, HTSUSA, which provides for “Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705: Other parts and accessories: Other: . . . : Other”. The Protestant asserts that the product is an “air bellow part”.

ISSUE:

Does the Application for Further Review (AFR) of Protest No. 3901-04-101300 satisfy the criteria for further review under 19 CFR Sections 174.24 and 174.25?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 174.24 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR §174.24) lists the criteria for granting an AFR. It states that an AFR will be granted when the decision against which the protest was filed:

Is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee, or with a decision made at any port with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise;

Is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts;

Involves matters previously ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts but facts are alleged or legal arguments presented which were not considered at the time of the original ruling; or

Is alleged to involve questions which the Headquarters Office, United States Customs Service, refused to consider in the form of a request for internal advice pursuant to §177.11(b)(5) of this chapter.

Additionally, Section 174.25(b)(3) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR §174.25(b)(3)) provides, in pertinent part, that an application for further review shall contain 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.

Protestant has not provided any criterion set forth in 19 CFR 174.24, which would justify further review. Furthermore, Protestant has failed to provide specific factual material and legal arguments that further review is warranted. The Protestant has ignored CBP’s request to provide additional information pertaining to the subject merchandise. In accordance with CBP Regulations, the Protestant must provide specific information to meet its claim that AFR is warranted and not merely make general statements of conclusions. See 19 CFR 174.25(b)(3); HQ 966550, dated August 22, 2003 and HQ 966810 dated December 10, 2003.

Accordingly, we find that the protestant fails to meet the criteria of 19 CFR §174.24 and the justification requirements of 19 CFR §174.25(b)(3), and that further review of the AFR is not warranted.

HOLDING:

Protest number 3901-04-101300 does not meet the criteria for further review under 19 CFR §174.24 and 19 CFR §174.25. The application for further review should not have been approved. We are returning the protest file to your office for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: