ENT-6/CON-2-07
CO:R:C:E 224524 TLS
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
1 East Bay Street
Savannah, Georgia 31401
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest #1703-93-100025
concerning civil aircraft certification; 19 CFR 10.183.
Dear Sir:
This office has received the above-referenced protest for
further review as provided for under Customs regulations. We have
considered the request and have made the following decision.
FACTS:
The importer made a warehouse entry of an aircraft engine on
April 19, 1991. Customs officials handling the entry state that the
importer did not have a blanket certification on file with the port
and no entry-by-entry certification was attached to the entry
summary at time of entry. A copy of the entry summary indicates
that withdrawal from the warehouse would be permitted "w/civil
aircraft letter only." Customs has acknowledged that this notation
was meant to indicate that withdrawal would be permitted with the
presentation of a civil aircraft certification.
Warehouse withdrawal was done on June 6, 1991, with the engine
being entered for consumption at a dutiable rate of 5% instead of
duty-free. According to Customs officials, they had not received
certification from the importer by the time of withdrawal. It is
for that reason that the entry was liquidated at the dutiable rate
on January 29, 1993. The importer contends that it had sent
certification to Customs officials before liquidation of the
consumption entry was done, but that it was inadvertantly returned
to its broker by Customs. A copy of a certification dated June 6,
1991 refers to a copy of invoice for the subject engine as well as
the entry number in this case. The importer also included with this
document a letter (also dated June 6, 1991) which requests a walk-
through the system for release. Customs officials state that they
never received the original certification, only the aforementioned
copy with this protest. They also state that no approval was given
for certification on this entry by Customs officials and none is on
record with Customs. This protest was timely filed under 19 U.S.C.
1514(a)(5), on February 5, 1993, protesting Customs decision not to
honor the certification and consequently liquidating the subject
entry at the dutiable rate.
ISSUE:
Whether Customs erred in liquidating the subject entry at a
dutiable rate and not honoring the civil aircraft certification
presented with this protest.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Section 10.183 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.183)
allows for the duty-free entry of civil aircraft and parts with the
certification that such aircraft and/or parts are to be used in
civil aircraft. The duty-free provision for the civil aircraft or
parts is found under General Note 3(c)(iv) of the Harmonized
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). The regulations
require that entry-by-entry certification be presented at the time
of the filing of the entry summary. 19 CFR 10.183(c)(2); Customs
ruling HQ 716812 (October 27, 1981).
The importer contends that it in fact did furnish certification
with the entry summary but that Customs inadvertantly returned the
certificate to the importer's broker. A copy of the certificate
dated June 6, 1991 was provided with this protest as evidence of
that claim. We find this documentation to be insufficient to
support the importer's claim, however, since it does not establish
the fact that it was filed with the entry summary or that Customs
received it.
As has been noted by Customs officials, Customs records do not
indicate that a certificate was received by Customs with the entry
summary or anytime before the subject entry was liquidated. The
copy provided with this protest does not disprove Customs contention
at all. If the importer's claim that its broker inadvertantly was
sent the certificate by Customs is true, then it would have been
prudent for the broker to notify Customs immediately to remedy the
situation. Apparently, that was not done in this case. Thus,
without any evidence to the contrary, we are compelled to find that
Customs decision to liquidate the subject entry without the duty-
free benefit was appropriate in this case. The presentation of the
entry-by-entry certification at the time of the filing of the
protest cannot be accepted because the regulations require it to be
submitted at the time the entry summary is filed.
HOLDING:
The evidence submitted is insufficient to show that the
required civil aircraft certification was furnished to Customs in
accordance with 19 CFR 10.183(c)(2). As a result, this protest
should be DENIED. A Customs Form 19, Notice of Action, should be
attached to a copy of this ruling.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division