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 > 1997 HQ Rulings > HQ 544784 - HQ 546479 > HQ 546391

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 546391

---

June 7, 1996

RR:IT:VA 546391 KCC

CATEGORY: VALUATION

Peter S. Herrick, Esq.
3520 Crystal View Court
Miami, Florida 33133

RE: Review of denial of the Application for Further Review for Protests 5201-96-100175 and 5201-96-100183

Dear Mr. Herrick:

This is in reference to your letter of May 24, 1996, on behalf of Everfit USA Corporation, requesting a review of the denials by the Miami Port Director of Application for Further Review for Protests 5201-96-100175 and 5201-96-100183 under the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Title VI (Customs Modernization), ?617, amending ?515 of the Tariff Act of 1930, [19 U.S.C. ?1515(c)]. As amended, 19 U.S.C. ?1515(c) provides, in part, as follows:

[i]f a protesting party believes that an application for further review was erroneously or improperly denied or was denied without authority for such action, it may file with the Commissioner of Customs a written request that the denial of the application for further review be set aside. Such request must be filed within 60 days after the date of the notice of the denial. The Commissioner of Customs may review such request and, based solely on the information before the Customs Service at the time the application for further review was denied, may set aside the denial of the application for further review and void the denial of the protest, if appropriate.

According to the documents in the file, the protestant filed timely protests concerning Customs appraisement of the subject merchandise pursuant to 19 U.S.C. ?1401a(f). The protests included an Application for Further Review based on ?174.24(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR ?174.24(b)), stating that the protests require "an interpretation of facts and questions of law which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or the U.S. Court of International Trade." The Applications for Further Review and protests were both denied on May 22, 1996. The request for reconsideration of the denial of the Applications for Further Review and protests was timely filed with this office within 60 days, on May 24, 1996.

To determine why the Miami Port Director denied the protests and Applications for Further Review, we contacted Import Specialist Roslyn Haynes. Ms. Haynes explained that the Applications for Further Review were erroneous denied. She had recommended denial of the protests but she also recommended that the Applications for Further Review be forwarded to Headquarters. However, both the protests and Applications for Further Review were denied and the Customs Protest Form 19s were mailed to you. In as much as the denial of the Applications for Further Review were in error, we are granting your request to set aside the denial of the Applications for Further Review and to void the denial of the protests. The Miami Port Director has been notified by this office to grant the Applications for Further Review and to forward the protest files to this office. At that time, the merits of the protests shall be decided by this office.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Kathleen Clarke, of my staff, at (202) 482-7063 or (202) 482-7010.

Sincerely,

Acting Director,
International Trade Compliance

Previous Ruling Next Ruling