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 967547 - HQ 967764 > HQ 967764

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 967764




June 16, 2005

CLA-2-RR:CR:GC
967764 IOR

Port Director
Customs and Border Protection
477 Michigan Ave.
Suite 200
Detroit, MI 48226
Attn: Sherry Ramirez, I.S.

RE: Protest AFR No. 3801-05-100062

Dear Port Director:

We are returning the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) and Protest 3801-05-100062 for your action. We find that the criteria for further review was not met as further explained below.

The protest is against the classification, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), of certain merchandise upon liquidation of the subject entry. The entry was liquidated on October 29, 2004, and this protest was timely filed on January 27, 2005.

In the “Application for Further Review” portion of the CF 19, specifically Block 15 in this case, the basis for further review states “[p]er details contained on the enclosed protest sheet, importer has had discussions with the N.I.S. on this and similar products and wishes that information to be considered in this AFR,” does not state a basis for AFR as required by the criteria set forth in 19 CFR 174.24. The continuation sheet also does not set forth any information that meets the criteria of 19 CFR 174.24. The protestant’s AFR does not meet the requirements set forth in the applicable regulations, section 174.24 (19 C.F.R. 174.24), which provide:

Further review of a protest which would otherwise by denied by the port director shall be accorded a party filing an application for further review which meets the requirements of § 174.25 when the decision against which the protest was filed:

(a) 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; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) 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.

Further review will be accorded to a party filing an AFR which meets the requirements of section 174.25 and at least one of the criterion in section 174.24. In the subject protest, the AFR was approved notwithstanding the fact the protestant has not alleged any of the conditions required in section 174.24 with regard to the decision protested. Consequently, the criteria for further review have not been met and therefore, we are returning the protest to you for your disposition.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please call Ieva O’Rourke, of my staff at 202-572-8803.

Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling