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 0545133 - HQ 0556194 > HQ 0556166

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 556166

October 15, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 556166 WAW


District Director
1100 Paeseo Int'l Highway
Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, CA

RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 2501-0-000051 under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2)

Dear Sir:

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

Protestant's request for further review may be summarily disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the administrative record, and protestant has not presented any evidence in support of its counsel's assertions. The Customs Service will not grant further review of a blanket protest. Protestant must comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements. Under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(1) a protest of a decision must set forth distinctly and specifically each decision as to which protest is made. See generally, United States v. Parksmith Corp., 514 F.2d 1052, 62 C.C.P.A. 76 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 812 (Cust. Ct. 1959); United States v. E.H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A. 89 (1945).

In the instant case, counsel simply asserts that protestant claims that "Fiberglass water vending cavinets assessed with duty at 3.9% ad val under subheading 8476.90.0000-9, HTSUS, are properly free of duty under subheading A8476.90.0000-9, HTSUS, because they meet the requirements for GSP qualification. Furthermore, counsel for the protestant stated that a memorandum in support of the Application for Further Review would be filed within sixty days after the filing of the protest (April 19, 1990). As of the present date, we have received no additional information in support of the protestant's claim that the fiberglass water vending cabinets are eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP. The Customs Regulations require that a protest set forth the nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each claim. Section 174.13(a)(6), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)). The Customs Service has and will continue to fully consider any relevant allegation in a protest supported by competent evidence. However, in acting on a protest, Customs cannot and will not assume facts that are not presented (e.g., an unsubstantiated claim that the foreign processing resulted in a double substantial transformation).

Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be denied in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the CF 19, Notice of Action, to satisfy the notice requirement of section 174.30(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.30(a)).


John A. Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: