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 > 2007 HQ Rulings > HQ H004643 - HQ H005862 > HQ H005628

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ H005628




September 4, 2007

DRA-4, LIQ-15
OT:RR:CTF:ER H005628 DCC

Ms. Jennifer Tagliaferro
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Protest Division, Room 402
1100 Raymond Blvd.
Newark, NJ 07102

RE: Protest and Application for Further Review 4601-06-102618

Dear Ms. Tagliaferro:

This letter is in response to your correspondence, dated January 12, 2007, whereby you forwarded an Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest Number 4601-06-102618 filed on behalf of Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. (“Valbruna”). Our decision follows.

FACTS:

Valbruna protests the liquidation of 18 entries of stainless steel bar made between October 10, 2002, and January 23, 2003. CBP liquidated the protested entries on August 25, 2006, and assessed antidumping pursuant to antidumping duty case number A-475-829, stainless steel bar from Italy. CBP also assessed Section 201 duties in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 7529 (67 Fed. Reg. 10553) (imposing tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (hereinafter, “Section 201 duties”) on certain steel products entered for consumption as of March 20, 2002).

The protest covers the following entries:

Entry No. Date of Entry Date of Liquidation 002-6110316-2* 11/02/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111115-7 12/20/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111223-9 1/09/2003 08/25/2006
002-6111109-0 12/19/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111082-9 12/18/2002 08/25/2006
002-6110748-6 11/26/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111267-6 1/06/2003 08/25/2006
002-6110711-4 11/26/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111447-4 1/23/2003 08/25/2006
002-6110706-4 11/27/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111495-3 1/22/2003 08/25/2006
002-6110240-4* 10/24/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111224-7 1/09/2003 08/25/2006
002-6110467-3* 11/06/2002 08/25/2006
002-6110076-2* 10/10/2002 08/25/2006
002-6111490-4 1/22/2003 08/25/2006
002-6110501-9* 11/13/2002 08/25/2006
002-6110380-8* 10/31/2002 08/25/2006

*Indicates six entries made before November 14, 2002, which are the subject of Valbruna’s second claim.

Deemed Liquidation

On January 23, 2002, Commerce published a notice regarding the final determination of its dumping investigation for stainless steel products from Italy. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 67 Fed. Reg. 3155 (Jan. 23, 2002). That notice states:

[I]n accordance with section 735(c)(1)(C) of the [Tariff Act of 1930], we are directing Customs to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise by Valbruna (which had a de minimis weighted-average margin for the Preliminary Determination) that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice [January 23, 2002] in the Federal Register. Customs shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP or CEP, as appropriate, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

On March 7, 2002, Commerce issued the antidumping duty order for imported stainless steel bar. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 67 Fed. Reg. 19,384 (March 7, 2002). That notice states:

For Acciaierie Valbruna Srl/Acciaierie Bolzano S.p.A., antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of stainless steel bar entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 23, 2002, the date of publication of the Department’s final determination in the Federal Register (67 FR 3155), and the Department will direct Customs to refund any cash deposits made, or bonds posted, on any subject merchandise which was entered prior to the Department’s final determination publication date of January 23, 2002.

On August 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued an injunction enjoining liquidation of entries of merchandise that was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after August 2, 2001, and on or before February 28, 2002.

On September 3, 2003, Commerce issued Message number 3246201, which contained liquidation instructions for stainless steel bar from Italy subject to Antidumping Duty Order A-475-829. This message contains the following instructions:

On 8/13/2003, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of certain entries which are subject to the antidumping duty order or finding on stainless steel bar from Italy (A-475-829), produced or exported by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. (“Valbruna”) for the period August 2, 2001 through February 28, 2002.

Accordingly, until further notice, do not liquidate entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by Valbruna and which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 2, 2001 through February 28, 2002. Continue to suspend liquidation of other entries until liquidation instructions are provided. Any entries which may be set for liquidation need to be unset immediately.

On November 17, 2003, Commerce issued Message number 3321201, which contained the following liquidation instructions:

On August 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of certain entries produced or exported by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. (“Valbruna”). Accordingly, do not liquidate entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by Valbruna for the period August 2, 2001, through February 28, 2002. See Message No. 3246201 dated September 3, 2003.

Liquidate all entries for all firms except the companies noted in paragraph 2 and below:

Period: 8/02/2001 – 2/28/2002

A-475-829-001 Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A.

[Paragraph 2 of the instructions listed two firms: Foroni S.p.A. and Ugine Savoie-Imphy.]

Entries of merchandise of excepted firms should not be liquidated until you receive specific instructions after the completion of the antidumping review or until the injunction has been lifted. Continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise exported or produced by the listed firms and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the periods noted above.

These instructions constitute the immediate lifting of suspension of liquidation of entries for the merchandise and periods listed above subject to the exception and conditions set forth in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 above. You shall continue to collect cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties for subsequent entries of the subject merchandise at the current rates.

On December 16, 2003, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained Commerce’s Final Determination with respect to all but one issue, which was remanded to Commerce for further explanation. See Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, 297 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003). After providing an explanation, the CIT sustained the Redetermination Results on June 9, 2004. See Slater Steels v. United States, Slip Op. 2004-63 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 9, 2004).

On June 24, 2004, the CIT issued an injunction enjoining the liquidation of certain entries pending appeal. That order provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
the United States Customs Service, shall be, and hereby [is] enjoined from making or permitting liquidation of any unliquidated entries of stainless steel bar from Italy by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. which:
are covered by the Antidumping Duty Order regarding Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 67 Fed. Reg. 10384 (Mar. 7, 2002);
were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 23, 2002 and on or before February 29, 2004;
remain unliquidated as of 5 o’clock p.m. on the first business day after the day on which copies of this Order are personally served by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. . .

On June 25, 2004, Commerce issued Message number 4177203, which contained additional liquidation instructions for stainless steel bar from Italy. This message contains the following instructions:

On 6/24/2004, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued an injunction pending appeal enjoining liquidation of certain entries which are subject to the antidumping order or finding on stainless steel bar from Italy (A-475-829), by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. (“Valbruna”) for the period January 23, 2002 through February 29, 2004 (Court No. 02-00189).

Accordingly, until further notice, do not liquidate entries of subject merchandise from Italy by Valbruna which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 23, 2002 and on or before February 29, 2004 that remain unliquidated as of 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2004. Continue to suspend liquidation of other entries until instructions are provided.

On March 28, 2005, Commerce issued Message number 5087203, which provided additional liquidation instructions for the subject merchandise. This message contains the following instructions:

On 02/18/2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an injunction pending appeal enjoining liquidation of certain entries which are subject to the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Italy (A-475-829), manufactured and/or exported by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. (“Valbruna”) for the period 01/23/2002 through 02/29/2004.

The injunction pending appeal was issued in connection with court case number 04-1535, and enjoins liquidation of the entries described above.

Accordingly, until further notice, do not liquidate entries of subject merchandise which were produced and/or exported by Valbruna and which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period 01/23/2002 through 02/29/2004. Continue to suspend liquidation of these entries until liquidation instructions are provided. Any entries which may be set for liquidation need to be unset immediately.

Liquidation instructions for entries affected by this injunction have not yet been issued.

On June 16, 2006, Commerce issued Message number 6167210, which provided additional liquidation instructions for the subject merchandise. This message contains the following instructions:

On December 6, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a final decision in the case of Slater Steels Corp. v. United States: CAFC Case Number 04-1535, U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) Case Number 02-00189. As a result of this decision, the injunctions enjoining liquidation of entries which are subject to the antidumping duty order or finding on stainless steel bar from Italy (A-475-829), manufactured and/or exported by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A. (“Valbruna”) dissolved on March 6, 2006.

As a result of the CAFC’s decision, entries of the subject merchandise which were manufactured and/or exported by Valbruna and which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period 08/02/2001 through 02/29/2004 can be liquidated. (See message numbers 5087203 dated 03/28/2005, 4177203 dated 06/25/2004, and 3246201 dated 09/03/2003, for reference).

As a result of the CAFC’s decision cited in paragraph 1, liquidate entries of stainless steel bar from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period 08/02/2001 through 02/29/2004. Assess antidumping duties on merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption by Valbruna at the cash deposit or bonding rate in effect on the date of entry. As a result of the court’s decision, for entries made from 08/02/2001 through 02/29/2004, the antidumping duty liability is not to exceed 2.50 percent of the entered value (see message no. 2059216 dated 02/28/2001).

Stainless Steel Bar from Italy (A-475-829)

Period: 08/02/2001 through 02/29/2004

Liquidate entries by Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A.: A-475-829-001

These instructions constitute the immediate lifting of suspension of liquidation of entries for the exporter, merchandise, and period listed above (see paragraph 3 above). . . .

On August 25, 2006, CBP liquidated the 18 entries in accordance with the liquidation instructions issued by Commerce on June 16, 2006. According to those instructions, the injunctions enjoining liquidation of the subject entries dissolved on March 6, 2006, three months after the Federal Circuits affirmed the CIT’s decision sustaining the Commerce’s Redetermination Results in Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 2004-63 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 9, 2004). The liquidation instructions directed CBP to liquidate Valbruna’s entries of the subject merchandise that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption Between August 2, 2001 and February 29, 2004, at the cash deposit or bonding rate in effect on the date of entry.

Valbruna claims that subject entries were deemed liquidated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1504(d) on May 17, 2004.

Section 201 Duties

The port assessed Section 201 duties on all 18 of the subject entries. The relevant facts are derived from the various Federal Register notices regarding the implementation of, and exclusions from, the Section 201 safeguard duties applied to certain steel products in 2002.

On March 5, 2002, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) transmitted to the President a report on its investigation under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the “Trade Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 2252), with respect to imports of certain steel products. See 67 Fed. Reg. 10,553 (March 7, 2002). Pursuant to that report, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 7529, which applied temporary duties to certain steel products (“Section 201 duties”). Proclamation 7529 also directed the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) to determine whether any particular products should be excluded from the list of covered products.

On July 12, 2002, USTR published a notice excluding certain steel products excluded from Section 201 duties, which were set forth in Note 11(c) of Chapter 99, HTSUS (2003), and applied retroactively to March 20, 2002. See Exclusion of Particular Products from Actions under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 With Regard to Certain Steel Products; Conforming Changes and Technical Corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 67 Fed. Reg. 46,221 (July 12, 2002).

August 30, 2002, USTR published additional exclusions and technical changes to the list of products excluded from Section 201 duties. See Exclusions of Particular Products From Actions Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 With Regard to Certain Steel Products; Conforming Changes and Technical Corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 67 Fed. Reg. 56,182 (Aug. 30, 2002). Among the additional exclusions was an amendment to subdivision (cxcvi) of U.S. Note 11(c). The amendment provided as follows:

Stainless steel bars, designated as X–090 and entered in an aggregate quantity not to exceed 5,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on September 1, 2002 or September 1, 2003 or during the period from September 1, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive; the foregoing free machining; diameter from 1.5 mm to 125.0 mm in round or hexagonal profile; length ranging from 3.0 m to 5.0 m; microstructure containing complex oxides of limesilico-aluminate (comprising metallurgical phases anhorthite and/or pseudowollastonite); with calcium content from 30 to 300 ppm and oxygen from 70 to 300 ppm, and with calciumto-oxygen ratio from 0.2 to 0.6; sometimes referred to as (but not limited to) products known as ‘‘UGIMA’;

67 Fed. Reg. at 56,199 (emphasis added).

Subsequently, on November 14, 2002, USTR published a notice of corrections to the Section 201 exclusion list. See Technical Corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 67 Fed. Reg. 69,065 (Nov. 14, 2002). The Annex to that notice amended the August 30, 2002 exclusion described in U.S. Note 11(c)(cxcvi) by deleting the phrase “sometimes referred to as (but not limited to) products known as ‘UGIMA’” and adding the phrase “products referred to as ‘UGIMA.’”
the language ‘‘microstructure containing complex oxides of lime-silico-aluminate (comprising metallurgical phases anhorthite and/or pseudowollastonite); with calcium content from 30 to 300 ppm and oxygen from 70 to 300 ppm, and with calcium-to-oxygen ratio from 0.2 to 0.6; sometimes referred to as (but not limited to) products known as ‘UGIMA’ ’’ is deleted and ‘‘austenitic, ferritic or martensitic crystalline structure as applicable, and containing oxides of lime silicoaluminate that form the CaO-Al2O3–SiO2 ternary composition primarily comprising anorthite and/or pseudowollastonite phases; with calcium content between 30 and 100 ppm and oxygen content between 70 and 200 ppm; products referred to as ‘UGIMA’’’ is inserted in lieu thereof;

67 Fed. Reg. at 69,069 (emphasis added).

On March 26, 2004, USTR published further corrections to the list of steel products excluded from Section 201 duties. See Technical Corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 69 Fed. Reg. 15917 (Mar. 26, 2004). That notice amended the exclusion for stainless steel products under subdivision (cxcvi). The amendment provided as follows:

Effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after September 1, 2002, and before the close of November 13, 2002, subdivision (c)(cxcvi) of such note is modified by deleting the language ‘‘austenitic, ferritic or martensitic crystalline structure as applicable, and containing oxides of lime silicoaluminate that form the CaO–Al2O3–SiO2 ternary composition primarily comprising anorthite and/or pseudowollastonite phases; with calcium content between 30 and 100 ppm and oxygen content between 70 and 200 ppm; products referred to as ‘UGIMA’ ’’ and by inserting the following language in lieu thereof: ‘‘microstructure containing complex oxides of lime-silico-aluminate (comprising metallurgical phases anhorthite and/or pseudowollastonite); with calcium content from 30 to 300 ppm and oxygen from 70 to 300 ppm, and with calcium-to-oxygen ratio from 0.2 to 0.6; sometimes referred to as (but not limited to) products known as ‘UGIMA’.

69 Fed. Reg. at 15,918-19 (emphasis added).

The port states in a Rate Advance Notice of Action dated August 26, 2003 that Valbruna’s entry documentation does not support the importer’s claim that the merchandise is on the list of products excluded from Section 201 duties because the exclusion for merchandise classified under 9903.77.76, HTSUS, is limited to products specifically referred to as “UGIMA.”

Valbruna claims that Section 201 duties should not be assessed on the six entries that were entered before November 14, 2002 because the imported merchandise was covered by an exclusion.

ISSUES:

Whether the entries were deemed liquidated as entered pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d).

Whether Section 201 steel safeguard duties were properly assessed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:
We note initially that the instant Protest was timely filed, i.e., within 180 days of the liquidation of the entries. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), “decisions of the Customs Service, including the legality of all orders and findings entering into the same, as to . . . the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry . . . shall be final and conclusive . . . unless a protest is filed in accordance with this section.” The port liquidated the subject entry on August 25, 2006, and Valbruna filed this Protest on November 22, 2006. In addition, pursuant to § 1514(a)(5), the matter protested—the liquidation of the subject entries—is subject to protest.

Deemed Liquidation

Valbruna argues that the subject entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law on May 17, 2004. The importer argues that the liquidation instructions issued on November 17, 2003 constituted the immediate lifting of the suspension of liquidation as of the date of issuance. Because the subject entries were not otherwise liquidated by CBP within six months of the November 17, 2003 liquidation instructions, Valbruna contends that pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1504(d) the entries liquidated six months after the issuance of those instructions, on May 17, 2004, at the rate of duty, value, quantity and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry. Consequently, Valbruna argues that CBP is precluded from assessing additional duties, including Section 201 duties, on the subject entries.

Removal of suspension of liquidation is governed by 19 U.S.C. 1504(d) which provides as follows:

Except as provided in section 1675(a)(3) of this title, when a suspension required by statute or court order is removed, the Customs Service shall liquidate the entry, unless liquidation is extended under subsection (b) of this section, within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal from the Department of Commerce, other agency, or a court with jurisdiction over the entry. Any entry (other than an entry with respect to which liquidation has been extended under subsection (b) of this section) not liquidated by the Customs Service within 6 months after receiving such notice shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted by the importer of record or (in the case of a drawback entry or claim) at the drawback amount asserted by the drawback claimant.

When suspension of liquidation is the result of a court order, the suspension will be lifted once the time for appealing the final court decision has expired. See Fujitsu Gen. Am. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding a suspension of liquidation was removed when the time for petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari had expired). Once CBP receives subsequently notice from Commerce that the suspension of liquidation has been removed, CBP must liquidate the entries within six months. If CBP does not liquidate the entries within that six-month period, the entries are deemed liquidated at the rate asserted upon entry.

In the instant case, the final court decision concerning Valbruna’s entries occurred on December 6, 2005 when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, 159 Appx. 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Fujitsu General, we find that the suspension of liquidation was removed on March 6, 2006, when the time for petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari expired.

Commerce subsequently issued liquidation instructions on June 16, 2006 directing CBP to liquidate the subject entries, which CBP liquidated on August 25, 2006. Because it occurred within six months of the notice from Commerce, the CBP’s liquidation of Valbruna’s entries was timely. Therefore, the subject entries were not subject to the deemed liquidation provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1504(d).

Valbruna offers another argument that the subject entries were liquidated by operation of law pursuant to section 1504(d). The company asserts that the United States previously acknowledged that the subject entries were deemed liquidated in arguments presented to the CIT in the underlying Slater Steels litigation. Specifically, Valbruna cites to the government’s June 30, 2004 Motion for Reconsideration of the CIT’s order granting Valbruna’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. In its motion, the government asserted that the subject entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law because they were not covered by the CIT’s August 13, 2003 preliminary injunction, which only covered Valbruna’s entries made between August 2, 2001 and February 28, 2002. The protestant argues that the government’s position in its June 30, 2004 motion for reconsideration demonstrates that the government had recognized that the subject entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law.

We disagree and note that the protestant fails to provide a complete description of the relevant facts. Although the government did argue that the subject entries were deemed liquidated in it motion for reconsideration, the protestant fails to state that the government’s motion was denied by the CIT in a court order dated September 14, 2004. Protestant also fails to state that in its June 23, 2004 Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal, Valbruna sought a court order to enjoin liquidation of its entries—entries which the company now claims were deemed liquidated more than five weeks before its motion for an injunction on May 17, 2004.

Because the CIT considered and rejected the government’s argument that the subject entries were deemed liquidated, the entries at issue were subject to the injunction enjoining liquidation pending appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Therefore, the CIT’s June 24, 2004 Injunction to Enjoin the Liquidation of Certain Entries Pending Appeal, covering merchandise that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of January 23, 2002 through February 29, 2004, controls and operates to preclude liquidation by operation of law of the subject entries until the order was lifted.

As noted in Message number 5087203, Commerce informed CBP that the CAFC issued an injunction on February 18, 2005, that enjoined liquidation of Valbruna’s entries pending appeal. That injunction was lifted, however, when the time for appealing the CAFC’s final decision, issued on December 6, 2005, expired on March 6, 2006. Commerce subsequently issued liquidation instructions on June 16, 2006 for the subject entries. Within six months of those instructions, on August 25, 2006, CBP liquidated the 18 entries in accordance with the liquidation instructions issued by Commerce. The liquidation instructions directed CBP to liquidate Valbruna’s entries of the subject merchandise that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption between August 2, 2001 and February 29, 2004, at the cash deposit or bonding rate in effect on the date of entry. Because CBP liquidated the subject entries within six months of the issuance of liquidation instructions by Commerce, the entries did not liquidate by operation of law under 19 U.S.C. 1504(d).

Section 201 Duties

The second issue is whether the imported merchandise was subject to Section 201 steel safeguard duties. Depending on the date of the amendment, the exclusion for stainless steel bar products may or may not require the product to be called “UGIMA.” As initially issued on August 30, 2002, and later on March 26, 2004, the exclusion did not apply exclusively to products referred to as UGIMA. According to the November 14, 2002 amendment, however, only stainless steel products referred to as UGIMA were eligible for the exclusion from Section 201 duties.

The port states in a Rate Advance Notice of Action dated August 26, 2003 that Valbruna’s entry documentation does not support the importer’s claim that the merchandise on the list of products excluded from Section 201 duties because the exclusion for merchandise classified under 9903.77.76, HTSUS, is limited to products specifically referred to as “UGIMA.”

Valbruna claims that the Section 201 duties should not be assessed against the six entries that were entered before November 14, 2002 because the imported merchandise was covered by an exclusion to the Section 201 duties, as corrected on March 26, 2004.

We agree with the protestant. Section 201 duties should not be assessed on the six entries that were entered before November 14, 2002 because the imported merchandise was excluded pursuant to the exclusion list as revised on March 26, 2004. We note that the port indicated on the CF 6445A that it agrees Section 201 duties should not be assessed on the six entries that were entered before November 14, 2002.

HOLDING:
The Protest should be DENIED with regard to the deemed liquidation claim, and GRANTED with regard to the exclusion of the six entries that were entered before November 14, 2002 from Section 201 duties.

In accordance with the Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (CIS HB, January 2002, pp. 18 and 21), 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 claim in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: