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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0088757 - HQ 0088998 > HQ 0088877

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 088877

July 18, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088877 NLP


District Director
55 Battery Street
P.O. Box 2450
San Francisco, CA 94126

RE: Protest and Request for Further Review No. 2809-90-101986, dated October 31, 1990; Ladies' plastic sandals

Dear District Director:

The above referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the protest and our decision follows.

In the instant case, protestant states that the importer of the subject footwear has filed protest no. 2809-90-001028, dated June 13, 1990, against your office's liquidation of an entry of ladies footwear in subheading 6402.99.30, HTSUSA. Protestant in the matter presently before Headquarters, who is the surety on the importer's bond, asserts that, until a decision on protest no. 2809-90-001028 has been made by the Customs Service, the importer will not honor his demand for payment. Therefore, to protect his interest, surety had counsel file the instant independent protest, which duplicates the claims made in the importer's protest.

Surety's request for further review may be summarily disposed of. Surety must comply with all the statutory and regulatory requirements. Under 19 U.S.C. Section 1515(a) a protesting party may request that a protest be subject to further review by another appropriate customs officer. For a protest to merit further review the requirements of 19 C.F.R. Section 174.24-26 must be met.

There is no basis for further review of this protest because there are no allegations with respect to the criteria set forth in 19 C.F.R. Section 174.24. The instant protest raises no legal or factual arguments which have not been considered by Customs. Surety simply asserts that the subject footwear was classified correctly as entered, without explanation. Nor have they alleged that the decision against which the protest was filed is inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee, or with a decision made in any district with respect to the same or similar merchandise.

Moreover, with respect to the protest itself, there has been a failure to comply with 19 U.S.C. Section 1514(c)(1) and 19 C.F.R. Section 174.13 (a)(6), which require a protestant to state the nature and justification for the objection with respect to the decision protested.

Based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be denied in full. A copy of this decision shold be attached to the Customs Form 19 Notice of Action to be sent to the protestant.


John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division?

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: