LIQ-9-01-CO:R:C:E 222746 CB
Regional Commissioner
U.S. Customs Service
Northeast Region
Suite 801
10 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1056
RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 0901-90-
750080 under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1)
Dear Sir:
The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office
for further review. We have considered the points raised and our
decision follows.
FACTS:
Protestant is seeking reliquidation of the subject entries,
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1), on the grounds that it
erroneously paid duties with respect to certain merchandise
eligible for preferential duty treatment under the United States-
Canada Free Trade Agreement ("FTA").
Protestant alleges that the entries subject to this protest
cover merchandise for which no duty preference was claimed at the
time of entry because it was not known that the articles were of
Canadian origin. According to the information provided, the
entries were made and liquidated between January 30, 1989, and
October 24, 1989. Protestant claimed and the merchandise was
liquidated under subheading 3208.20.0000, HTSUSA, at an ad
valorem rate of 3.6 percent. Two blanket Exporters Certificate
of Origin (ECO) were submitted by protestant together with
its 1520(c)(1) protest. One ECO has a range of effective dates
from January 1, 1989, to June 30, 1989. The other blanket ECO
has a range of effective dates from July 1, 1989, to December 31,
1989. The signature date for both certificates is June 9, 1989.
The district office has denied the protest on the ground
that the claim involves a question of law. The district's
position is that, on three of the four entries, protestant should
have sought reliquidation based on 19 U.S.C. 1514. Moreover,
that FTA treatment should have been claimed on two of the
entries because they were made subsequent to the signature date
on the ECO.
-2-
ISSUE:
Whether a mistake of fact correctable under 19 U.S.C. 1520
(c)(1) occurred when the importer failed to assert FTA
eligibility?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.
C. 1514 (1982 & Supp. 1985)), sets forth the proper procedure for
an importer to protest the classification and appraised value of
its merchandise when it believes Customs has misinterpreted the
applicable law and incorrectly classified the imported
merchandise. Section 514 makes the tariff treatment of goods
final and conclusive, unless the classification is protested
within ninety days of liquidation.
Section 520(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1520(c)(1)), provides that Customs may correct certain
errors, if adverse to the importer, within one year from the date
of liquidation. An entry may be reliquidated in order to correct
a clerical error, mistake of fact, or inadvertence not amounting
to an error in the construction of a law. See 19 U.S.C. 1520
(c)(1); 19 CFR 173.4. Section 520(c) is not an alternative to
the normal liquidation-protest method of obtaining review, but
rather affords limited relief where an unnoticed or unintentional
error has been committed. See Computime, Inc. v. United States,
9 Ct. Int'l Trade 553, 554, 622 F. Supp. 1083, 1085 (1985); see
also Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cust. B. &
Dec. No. 29, p. 38, Slip Op. No. 89-89 (CIT June 27, 1989).
In the instant case, the protestant alleges that it was
unaware that the merchandise may have been entitled to
preferential duty treatment under the FTA until after
liquidation. The record indicates otherwise. Two certificates
of origin were issued by the exporter. Both were signed on June
9, 1989. Three of the subject entries were liquidated subsequent
to the issuance of the certificates. Protestant was well able to
file a 1514 protest and present the certificates at such time.
Protestant has failed to satisfactorily provide evidence
indicating why it was unable to file such a timely protest,
within the reliquidation period, with regard to the three entries
liquidated between September 1, 1989, and October 24, 1989.
Therefore, relief cannot be granted under 1520(c)(1).
Regarding the entry liquidated on February 17, 1989, the
Canadian exporter completed and signed the ECO on June 9, 1989,
more than 90 days after liquidation. Therefore, the protestant
-3-
did not have the option of filing a 1514 protest. The record
indicates that a certificate was not timely prepared.
Consequently, the one entry liquidated on February 17, 1989, does
fall within the scope of 1520(c)(1).
HOLDING:
Protestant has failed to substantiate its claim with respect
to the entries liquidated between September 1, 1989, and October
24, 1989. Therefore, this protest should be denied with respect
to those entries. This claim should be approved with respect to
the entry liquidated on February 17, 1989.
This protest should be Denied in part and Approved in part.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division