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 > 1992 HQ Rulings > HQ 0950991 - HQ 0951117 > HQ 0951101

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 951101

February 13, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 951101 CRS


TARIFF NO.: 6114.30.3070

S. Richard Shostak, Esq.
Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara
3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1240
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2597

RE: Request for reconsideration of HRL 087946; Protest No. 2704- 89-002301; swim sweater; San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co.

Dear Mr. Shostak:

This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1992, in which you requested reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 087946 of December 24, 1991.


HRL 087946 concerned an application for further review of protest no 2704-89-002301. At issue was the classification of an inflatable swimming vest known as a "swim sweater," designed for children ages 2-6. The protested entries were liquidated under subheading 6307.20.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), under the provision for other made up articles: lifejackets and lifebelts. As counsel for Kransco Manufacturing, Inc., however, you argued that the swim sweater was classifiable in subheading 4016.95.0000, HTSUSA, under the provision for other articles of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber: other inflatable articles.

In HRL 087946 the protest was denied and the swim sweater was classified in subheading 6114.30.3070, HTSUSA, under the provision for other garments, knitted or crocheted: of man-made fibers: other: other: women's or girls'.

In your letter of January 31, 1992, you requested that formal denial of protest no. 2701-89-002301 be withheld pending reconsideration of HRL 087946. Your request was received by this office on February 5, 1992. Upon researching the matter we found that the denial of the protest decision was mailed by the Los Angeles/Long Beach District on February 6, 1992. In addition, we note that a review of the protest file (087946) indicates that you made no request for a meeting prior to your January letter.


The issue presented is whether Customs may delay the effect of a protest once the decision has been mailed to the protestant.


Customs has no authority to exercise jurisdiction over a protest after it has been denied. San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 738, 740 (1985); 9 CIT 517 (1985). HRL 087946 was issued by this office on December 24, 1991. Denial of the protest was mailed by the Los Angeles/Long Beach District office on February 6, 1992. Since the request for reconsideration was not received until February 5, 1992, however, the protest was denied before this office had the opportunity to act on your request. Accordingly, we are unable to grant your request for reconsideration.


Pursuant to the foregoing, your request for reconsideration of HRL 087946 is denied.


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: