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 > 2007 HQ Rulings > HQ W967939 - HQ W968210 > HQ W968088

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ W968088




February 13, 2007

CLA-2 RR:CTF:TCM W968088 BAS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

Tariff No.: n/a

Port Director
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Port of Cincinnati
4243 Olympia Blvd
Suite 210
Erlanger, KY 41048

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest no. 4102-05-100027

Dear Port Director:

We are returning the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) and Protest 4102-05-100027 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 August, 12, 2005, and the protest was timely filed on October 5, 2005.

In the “Application for Further Review” portion of the CF 19, specifically Block 15 in this case, the importer does not state a basis for further review as required by the criteria set forth in section 174.24 of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR § 174.24). There is no continuation sheet attached to the protest to set forth additional 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 be 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:

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.

Further review will be accorded to a party filing an AFR that meets the requirements of section 174.25 and at least one of the criteria 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 Beth A. Safeer of my staff at (202) 572-8825.

Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling