CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 953309 SK
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
40 South Gay Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1303-92-100269;
19 CFR 174.24; protest denied where matter has previously been
ruled on by Customs and no new facts or legal arguments are
presented in the application for further review.
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
dismissed. The scope of review in this protest is on
administrative record, and protestant has not presented any new
evidence or legal arguments in support of the assertions
presented in the protest.
As mandated in 19 CFR 174.24(c), the Customs Service will
not grant further review of a protest which involves matters
previously ruled upon by Customs in which no new facts or legal
arguments are presented. In the instant case, protestant
disputes the holding in New York Ruling Letter (NYRL) 865310,
dated August 1, 1991, in which Customs classified a nonwoven
filtering material as a filter or straining fabric under
subheading 5911.40.0000, HTSUSA. That ruling was affirmed in
Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 950493, dated September 29,
1992. HRL 950493 gave a detailed response as to why such
filtering material was properly classifiable under subheading
5911.40.0000, HTSUSA.
In both protestant's submission to Customs when requesting a
reconsideration of NYRL 865310, and in the current application
for further review, protestant states that the merchandise at
issue is not classifiable under subheading 5911.40.0000, HTSUSA,
because: 1) it is not a straining cloth of a kind used in oil
- 2 -
presses and the like; and 2) this material is more specifically
provided for in subheading 5911.90, HTSUSA, as other articles for
technical uses.
As no new evidence or legal arguments were presented to this
office in protestant's application for further review, the
criteria for further review as set forth in 19 CFR 174.24(c) has
not been met. Therefore, based on the foregoing, 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.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director