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 967765 - HQ 967968 > HQ 967848

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 967848




September 30, 2005

CLA-2: RR:CTF:TCM 967848 KSH

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 8529.90.8100

Port Director
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
150 North Royal Street
Suite 3004
Mobile, AL 36602

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest 1901-05-100041

Dear Port Director:

This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 1901-05-100041, filed by Videology Imaging Solutions, Inc., on behalf of Phillips Electronics/Videology Imaging Solutions.

FACTS:

The protest is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) classification and liquidation of one entry of ¼” CCD color board cameras under subheading 8529.90.8100 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The merchandise was invoiced and entered at the time of importation under subheading 8529.90.8100, HTSUS.

Protestant entered the merchandise subject to this protest on May 27, 2004. The merchandise was liquidated as entered on April 8, 2005. Protestant filed a protest with an application for further review on April 27, 2005. The protest was timely filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514 (c)(3) and 19 C.F.R. 174.12 (e)(1).

ISSUE:

Does AFR 1901-05-100041 satisfy the criteria for further review under 19 CFR §§174.24 and 174.25?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 174.24 of the CBP 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 CBP 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.

Under Section V, Number 15 of the instant Protest (“Justification of Further Review Under the Criteria in 19 CFR 174.24 and 174.25”), the protestant does not provide any statement or evidence to substantiate that this protest involves facts or legal arguments which warrant further review by this office. Protestant has completely failed to complete Section V of the Protest in which justification for further review under the criteria set forth in 19 CRF 174.24 and 174.25 is required.

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 1901-05-100041 does not meet the criteria for further review under 19 CFR §174.24 and 19 CFR §174.25. Accordingly, the AFR should not have been granted. We are returning the protest file to your office for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: