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 > 2000 HQ Rulings > HQ 546588 - HQ 561395 > HQ 561063

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 561063

March 30, 2000

CLA-2 RR:TC:SM 561063 KKV


Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
P.O. Box 2450
San Francisco, CA 94126

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2809-98-200038

Dear Sir or Madam:

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


The record indicates that the subject protest was timely filed on April 8, 1998, by American Motorists Insurance Co. (as surety) in connection with four entries filed at your port. Protestant, through counsel, asserts that:

[S]aid merchandise is dutiable under the same HTSUSA provision as assessed or claimed, but at reduced rate or rates, if any, thereof, modified or amended by trade agreement, proclamation, legislation, statue, regulation or otherwise. If said merchandise is not dutiable under any of these provisions as above claimed, then it is dutiable thereunder by application of the appropriate General Rules of Interpretation, HTSUSA, and only if lower than the assessed rate.

Although the protest further states “Please see attached memorandum for details of claims,” your office advises that no such memorandum has been submitted in connection with this protest.


Whether the evidence presented by the protestant creates a sufficient basis upon which relief may be granted.


Protestant’s request for further review may be disposed of summarily. The scope of review is limited to the administrative record and protestant has not presented any evidence in support of its allegations.

Under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1), a protest of a decision under subsection (a) of section 1514 must set forth distinctly and specifically each decision as to which protest is made. See generally, United States v. Parksmith Corporation, 514 F.2d 1052, 62 C.C.P.A. 76 (1975); American Commerce Company 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 addition, the Customs Regulations requires that a protest contain the nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each decision. See 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6). General allegations, without more, are insufficient. While Customs will consider all relevant claims that are supported by competent evidence, it lacks the legal authority to assume facts and arguments that are not presented and, therefore, not in the official record. Therefore, we find that there is no basis upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the protest should be denied in full for failure to comply with the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1) and 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6).


On the basis of the information provided, the subject protest should be denied in full.

In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web
at www.customs.treas.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.


John A. Durant

Previous Ruling Next Ruling