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 > 1996 HQ Rulings > HQ 959031 - HQ 959256 > HQ 959069

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 959069

March 28, 1996

CLA-2 RR:TC:FC 959069 ALS


TARIFF NO.: 2309.90.9500

Area Port Director of Customs
35 W. Service Road
Champlain, NY 12919

RE: Request for Further Review of Protest 0712-95-100962, Dated September 27, 1995, Concerning a Herbal Supplement for Cats and Dogs Known as Hokamix

Dear Mr. Ballard:

This is reference to the subject request for further review of a protest of the decision of September 1, 1995, concerning the classification of a herbal supplement for cats and dogs known as "Hokamix."


The product under consideration is a herbal supplement for cats and dogs known as Hokamix (a.k.a. Hoka Mix 30). The product, which contains various vitamins, minerals and trace elements, is sprinkled directly on the animal's daily food. It is packaged in 3 sizes ranging from 180 grams to 900 grams for home use and in a package of 5 kilograms for use in kennels. The product is further described in the Headquarters Ruling Letters hereafter referenced.


Is the protest properly the subject of a request for further review?


Section 174.25(b)(3), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.25(b)(3)), requires, among other things, that the protesting party provide a statement as to which of the criteria in section

174.24, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.24), it is relying on to support its request for further review. In reviewing the instant further review request, we found no basis for such review stated therein. However, reference is made in the protest to a conflicting treatment of the product by Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise.

In examining the background of this matter, we note that this Office has already considered this matter in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 953755, dated September 3, 1993, HRL 955694, dated June 6, 1994, and HRL 957140, dated July 11, 1995. The same broker and/or Canadian shipper have been involved in at least 2 of these cases. We have repeatedly considered their arguments in support of their position.

The apparent basis for approval of the current further review request was a differing tariff treatment by Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise. As can be specifically noted in HRL 957140, we were aware of the apparent conflicting tariff treatment when the request for reconsideration of HRL 953755 was before this Office.

In view of the above, we have concluded that the requirements for further review of protest 0712-95-100962 have not been met.


When the criterion for further review, pursuant to section 174.24, Customs Regulation (19 CFR 174.24) is not specified or when the issue raised in that protest has previously been the subject of a Headquarters Ruling Letter by the U.S. Customs Service (174.26(b)(iv)), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.26(b)(iv)), the protest should be reviewed and acted upon by the appropriate district/port director. Accordingly, we are returning the protest to your office for disposition in accordance with aforementioned Headquarter Ruling Letters.


John Durant, Director
Tariff Classification

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: