DRA-4-RR:IT:EC 226435 LTO
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
610 S. Canal Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607
RE: Protest 3901-95-101952; substitution unused merchandise drawback; 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2); 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(3); 19 CFR 191.32(e); waste; commercial interchangeability; relative values; use; HQs 222059, 222494, 223533, 225493, 226074, 226473, 227084
Dear Port Director:
This is in reference to protest 3901-95-101952, which
concerns the eligibility of certain imported tinplate for
drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2). The drawback entries were
filed between November 25, 1992 and March 22, 1993, and were
liquidated on June 2, 1995. This protest was timely filed, in
accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2), on August 14, 1995.
FACTS:
The protestant, Berlin Metals, Inc. ("Berlin"), purchases
foreign and domestic tinplate in coil or sheet (coil rolled out
and cut to length) form. Berlin cuts the coil or sheet and then
exports foreign and domestic coil ends and non-conforming sheet
to foreign buyers. This protest concerns the export of the
domestic coil ends and non-conforming sheet. According to
Berlin, the imported and exported articles are, in all cases,
tinplate having the same class and specification assigned by the
American Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM"). See
"Standard Specification for Tin Mill Products," ASTM A 623-92.
The tinplate that is designated for drawback and the tinplate
that is exported with a claim of drawback are in all cases to be
used in the manufacture of tin cans and containers.
Based on the Drawback Audit Report, dated March 9, 1995,
which was prepared by the Regulatory Audit Division, Chicago,
Illinois, you found "that substantially all (95%) of the
substituted exports were not commercially interchangeable with
- 2 -
their designated imports," and therefore, were not eligible for
drawback.
ISSUE:
1. Whether any of the exported merchandise was "waste."
2. Whether the exported coil ends and non-conforming sheet
are commercially interchangeable with the imported tinplate, in
sheet and coil form.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
1. Waste
It has long been the position of the Customs Service, based
on long-standing Court decisions, that drawback is not allowable
on the exportation of waste. In United States v. Dean
Linseed-Oil Co., 87 Fed. 453, 456 (2nd Cir. 1898), cert. den.,
172 U.S. 647 (1898), the Government argued that the petitioner
was not entitled to any drawback, "because oil cake is not a
manufactured article, but is waste." The Court did not accept
this argument, holding that the merchandise involved (linseed oil
cake) was not waste, but a manufactured article, so that drawback
would be available. However, the Court implicitly accepted the
Government's position that drawback was unavailable on the
exportation of waste by distinguishing the linseed oil cake from
tobacco scraps or tobacco clippings, which were held not to be
manufactured articles by the U.S. Supreme Court in Seeberger v.
Castro, 153 U.S. 32 (1894) (cited in Dean Linseed-Oil). See HQ
222494, dated February 14, 1996.
A review of the commercial invoices indicates that some of
the exported merchandise may have been "waste." For example, an
invoice dated July 21, 1991, for entry C39-XXXX139-4, lists
"electrolytic tinplate waste/waste" as exported merchandise; an
invoice dated August 13, 1991, for entry C39-XXXX119-6, lists
"secondary electrolytic tinplate w/w in coils" as exported
merchandise; and an invoice dated December 10, 1992, for entry
C39-XXXX148-5, lists "misprints" as exported merchandise.
Berlin contends that they do not export tinplate waste.
They state that "'tin plate scrap' is not sold as a separately
identifiable commodity on the export market . . . and Berlin has
not sold any such scrap for export. No quoted export prices for
tinplate scrap exist." However, companies like Berlin that
generate tinplate scrap as part of their manufacturing
operations, usually sell it at or near a quoted market price for
- 3 -
"#1 Dealer Bundles"--a standard phrase used in the steel,
automotive and scrap industries to identify quantities of bundled
or baled scrap metal sold to steel mills for remelting. "#1
Dealer Bundles" consist of tinplate scrap (including clippings or
other forms) compressed to not less than 75 pounds per cubic
foot.
Berlin has provided a copy of a purchase contract, dated
August 6, 1991, for domestic tinplate scrap. Berlin's sales
price for "tin plate clips" (a form of tinplate scrap that is
shredded) is based upon the "first effective issue of Iron Age
Scrap Price Bulletin, Chicago area, #1 Dealer Bundles, high side
. . . Less $21.00 per gross ton."
Berlin has also provided copies of the Iron Age Scrap Price
Bulletin for July 22, 1991, July 27, 1992, and July 26, 1993,
which list ferrous scrap prices at those times for several
markets. The price at Los Angeles for "#1 Dealer Bundles" in
July of 1992 was $54 to $56 per gross ton (2,240 lbs.), or $2.41
to $2.50 CWT, while the price at Chicago was $141 to $142 per
gross ton, or $6.29 to $6.34 CWT ["CWT price" is the price for
each 100 pounds (e.g., "$22 CWT" means "$22 per hundred pounds");
it is also referred to as "cwt.," or the "hundred weight" price].
Using the formula set forth in Berlin's 1991 sales contract, the
1992 price per CWT for tin plate scrap was $3.53 ("Chicago
area"). Berlin has not provided a purchase contract using "Los
Angeles area" prices.
According to the protestant, "[t]he price per CWT of the
export product is less than the price of the designated import,
and typically in the range of (U.S.) $10-14 per CWT." The
commercial invoices described above indicate a somewhat wider
"price per CWT" range for "waste/waste," "w/w" and "misprints,"
respectively: $9.47, $16.24 and $8.00 CWT. All are
substantially greater than the "price per CWT" for "#1 Dealer
Bundles" of ferrous scrap provided in the above-listed copies of
the Iron Age Scrap Price Bulletin (approximately 3 times greater,
using Los Angeles, the place of export, prices).
As stated above, Berlin has provided a purchase contract
that lists the terms for the purchase of "tin plate clips." This
purchase is based in part on the price of "Dealer #1 Bundles," as
listed in the Scrap Price Bulletin. There is no evidence
indicating the relationship between "tin plate clips" (shredded
tinplate scrap) and the exported merchandise, which is claimed to
be coil ends and non-conforming sheet. Further, there is no
evidence indicating that the correct comparison is between
- 4 -
"Dealer #1 Bundles," rather than other forms of scrap listed in
the Scrap Price Bulletin, and the exported merchandise.
Berlin has also submitted a letter dated March 27, 1996,
from Weirton Steel Corporation ("Weirton"), where Weirton
provides that the term "waste/waste" refers to "Tin Mill Products
where a coil or skid of cut sheets produced by the steel mill has
some defect that will reduce the overall yield of the coil or
skid for its intended customer to 95% or less. This defect could
be as simple as a damaged edge." This material can be purchased
at a "lower than the normal transaction price to compensate for
the lesser yield." Can manufacturers, with the ability to choose
from a large number of can sizes, can types and types of
fabricating machinery, "are typically able to have the material
cut to a different size with the defective sheets sorted out to
allow them to utilize the material." According to Weirton, the
term "'waste/waste' is not a term used to describe scrap Tin
Plate products."
In another letter submitted by Berlin dated March 18, 1996,
from Keun Yuan Hong, Inc. ("KYH"), KYH provides that it purchased
over 1,000 tons of tin mill products from Berlin in 1992 and
1993. This material, which "was not scrap and was very much
'usable,'" had been purchased from American National Can Co.
("ANC"). KYH then re-sold the material as "Tin Plate" in Asia to
be used to make tin cans for food products. KYH has provided
invoices and bills of lading from 1992 which refer to the product
purchased from Berlin as "electrolytic tinplate" in sheet (i.e.,
"ETP MISPRINT MIXED TYPE," "WASTE/WASTE ELECTROLYTIC TINPLATE IN
SHEET OR TIN FREE STEEL MISPRINTED, MISLACQUERED"). According to
the protestant, the term "misprints," as found on invoices and
bills of lading, refers to tinplate sheets that have been
lithographed with a design that might not be exactly according to
the producer's specifications. The foreign purchaser again
lithographs the tin plate and makes it into a can meeting the
purchasers's specifications, after excluding or covering up the
earlier lithograph.
Finally, Berlin has submitted a statement from the former
Director of ANC (Director when Berlin purchased the tinplate
exported with claims for drawback) dated December 4, 1995. In
this letter, the former Director confirms that the tinplate
purchased by Berlin was usable by container manufacturers abroad
for the production of tinplate containers, that ANC designated
the product as "scrap" for internal (accounting) purposes only,
that tinplate scrap was not sold for export ("sold to industrial
scrap facilities in the USA only"), and that the product
- 5 -
purchased by Berlin had a "considerably higher" value than the
scrap metal generated from their manufacturing process.
The letter from Weirton refers to merchandise described as
"waste/waste" as "secondary." This, and other references in the
Weirton letter, will be discussed in the "commercial
interchangeability" section of this ruling. The letter from KYH
does not identify the signer, nor does it state the basis of the
signer's knowledge. An unverifiable affidavit, such as this, is
not entitled to much weight. See Andy Mohan Inc. v. United
States, 537 F.2d 516; 63 C.C.P.A. 103; C.A.D. 1173 (1976).
Further, invoices (i.e, B/L LOC139744) submitted by Berlin which
list the shipper/exporter as KYH fail to show the name of the
purchaser and have discrepancies in the weights of the exported
articles (LBS vs. KGS). The letter from ANC states that ANC's
accounting department designates their sales as "scrap," for
internal purposes, but claims that the articles are not "scrap."
The letter does not provide an explanation as to why ANC lists
its sales as "scrap" internally, nor does it explain why some of
the invoices submitted by Berlin list the merchandise as
"waste/waste," "w/w" and "misprints," while others refer to the
merchandise simply as tinplate coil.
After thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided by
Berlin, including the purchase contract, industry price lists and
letters submitted by Weirton, KYH and the former Director of ANC,
we believe that Berlin has failed to provide sufficient evidence
indicating that the exported merchandise did not consist of any
waste. Accordingly, the merchandise described as "waste/waste,"
"w/w" or "misprints" are excluded, on this basis, from drawback
eligibility.
2. Commercial Interchangeability
Under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2), as amended, drawback may be
granted if, among other requirements, there is, with respect to
imported duty-paid merchandise, any other merchandise that is
commercially interchangeable with the imported merchandise. To
qualify for drawback, the other merchandise must be exported or
destroyed within 3 years from the date of importation of the
imported merchandise. Also, before the exportation or
destruction, the other merchandise may not have been used in the
United States and must have been in the possession of the
drawback claimant. Further, the party claiming drawback must be
either the importer of the imported merchandise or have received
from the person who imported and paid any duty due on the
imported merchandise a certificate of delivery transferring to
- 6 -
that party the imported merchandise, commercially interchangeable
merchandise, or any combination thereof.
The drawback law was substantively amended by section 632,
title VI - Customs Modernization, Public Law 103-182, the North
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (107 Stat.
2057), enacted December 8, 1993. Before its enactment by Public
Law 103-182, the standard for substitution was "fungibility."
House Report 103-361, 103d Cong., 1st Sess., 131 (1993), contains
language explaining the change from fungibility to commercial
interchangeability as a standard for substitution for drawback
under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2). According to the House Ways and
Means Committee Report, the standard was intended to be made less
restrictive (i.e., "the Committee intends to permit the
substitution of merchandise when it is 'commercially
interchangeable,' rather than when it is 'commercially
identical'") (the reference to "commercially identical" derives
from the definition of fungible merchandise in the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 191.2(l))). The Report also states:
The Committee further intends that in determining
whether two articles were commercially interchangeable,
the criteria to be considered would include, but not be
limited to: Governmental and recognized industrial standards, part numbers, tariff classification, and
relative values.
The Senate Report for the NAFTA Act (S.Rep. 103-189, 103d
Cong., 1st Sess., 81-85 (1993)) contains similar language and
states that the same criteria should be considered by Customs in
determining commercial interchangeability.
Berlin contends that the imported tinplate, in sheet and
coil form, is "commercially interchangeable" with the exported
tinplate, in the form of coil ends and non-conforming sheet.
With regard to the first, Governmental and recognized industrial
standards criterion, both the import and export consist of
tinplate having the same class and specification--"Standard
Specification for Tin Mill Products," ASTM A 623-92--a recognized
industrial standard assigned by ASTM. However, Berlin has not
provided any contracts (import or export) indicating that the
sale was on the basis of the ASTM specifications. In the absence
of these contracts, use of these specifications to prove
"commercial interchangeability" would seem to be inappropriate.
The second, part numbers criterion, is not relevant to the
instant case.
- 7 -
With regard to the third, tariff classification criterion,
both the imported and exported tinplate are classifiable under
heading 7210, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS), which provides for flat-rolled products of iron or
nonalloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or
coated. Specifically, the tinplate, in coil or sheet form and
with or without imperfect edges, is classifiable either under
subheading 7210.11.00, HTSUS (0.5 mm or more), or subheading
7210.12.00, HTSUS (less than 0.5 mm), depending on the thickness
of the product.
There is no evidence as to whether the cutting and slitting
in the United States affects the thickness, and therefore, the
classification of the product. Berlin states that the exported
merchandise "is identical in all respects to the import, except
that it may be a smaller length or width . . . ." Berlin also
states that the imported and exported merchandise is
"classifiable in the same provision of the [HTSUS]. The
classification is subheading 7210.11 and 7210.12, HTSUS . . .
(emphasis added)." If the cutting or slitting of the coil or
sheet does not affect the thickness of the product, and the
products imported and exported by Berlin are covered by the same
subheading, either subheading 7210.11 or 7210.12, HTSUS, then
they would satisfy the third criterion. However, if the cutting
or slitting of the coil or sheet does affect thickness and
classification, then Berlin will have failed to satisfy this
criterion.
With regard to the fourth, relative values criterion, Berlin
states that it sells tinplate to a foreign buyer that is
"identical in all respects to the import, except that it may be
smaller in length or width, or may have an imperfect edge which
makes it unsuitable for automated production techniques."
However, the Drawback Audit Report and commercial documentation
submitted by Berlin, indicates that the import "CWT price" often
differed from the export "CWT price." CWT price is an industry
standard for tinplate which, according to Berlin, is not affected
by the width or length of the coil or sheet.
For example, according to documentation in the file (i.e.,
invoices, the Audit Report), the imports in drawback entry number
C39-XXXX119-6, ranged from $18 to $31 CWT (rounded to the nearest
dollar), while exports were listed at $7, $14-18 and $22 CWT. In
drawback entry number C39-XXXX139-4, imports were either $26 or
$31 CWT, while exports were listed at $9, $13-14 and $17 CWT. In
drawback entry number C39-XXXX148-5, imports ranged from $19 to
$43 CWT, while exports were listed at $8-9, $13-15 and $17 CWT.
- 8 -
We note that we have no evidence as to the description of the
imported merchandise.
The standards used in the Audit Report when considering the
relative values of the import and export were described as
follows:
A First-In, First-Out (FIFO) analysis was used to match
each import with a corresponding export. If the CWT
price of the export was equal to or greater than the
import, the relative value was considered comparable.
On the other hand, the relative value was not
comparable if the CWT price of the export was less than
the import's CWT price.
Thus, drawback was denied in drawback entry number C39-XXXX119-6 for imports listed at $22 CWT when matched with exports
listed at $14, $16 and $18 CWT. However, drawback was granted
for an import listed at $22 CWT when matched with an export also
listed at $22 CWT. These "standards" were consistently followed
in the report for all entries, and were used to deny the drawback
claims in question, except on six occasions found in drawback
entry numbers C39-XXXX116-2 and C39-XXXX119-6. In these
instances, the auditor (mistakenly, according to the Audit
Report's standards) allowed drawback where the CWT price of the
export was less than the CWT price of the import, but denied
drawback where the CWT price of the export was greater than the
CWT price of the import.
The rejection of drawback claims because the value of the
export is less than the value of the import has no foundation in
the drawback statute, regulations or legislative history. Thus,
reliance on the auditor's guidelines in this instance was
misplaced. The focus of a section 1313(j)(2) drawback
determination is on "commercial interchangeability." The
relative values of the import and export are merely factors in
this determination. Customs has previously found merchandise to
be commercially interchangeable where the value of the export was
less than the value of the import. See, e.g., HQ 225493, dated
July 19, 1995 (with regard to the January 22, 1992 claim, the
relative value of the imported merchandise was $0.2585, while the
relative value of the exported merchandise ranged from $0.245 to
0.31).
Berlin states that the difference in value between the
imported and exported tinplate is due to a loss of value caused
by the cutting and slitting of the imported tinplate and to
changes in market conditions. Berlin also contends that the loss
- 9 -
of value due to the cutting and slitting should not automatically
disqualify a product for substitution under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2),
because cutting and slitting do not constitute a "use" of the
merchandise under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(3) and the exported steel is
suitable for the same use (making metal containers) as that which
was imported.
As provided above, Berlin states that the CWT price "is an
industry standard . . . which is not affected by the width or
length of the coil or sheet." Berlin does not explain why the
cutting and slitting of the imported tinplate would affect its
CWT price, a price related to the sale of 100 pounds of the
material in any form.
With regard to 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(3), we agree that the
cutting or slitting (both of which are specifically enumerated in
section 1313(j)(3)) of the tinplate coil and sheet does not
amount to a manufacture or production, and therefore, "shall not
be treated as a use of that merchandise . . . ." See also 19 CFR
191.32(e). The cutting and slitting changes the length and/or
width of the coil and sheet, but does not transform them into a
new and different article having a different name, character or
use. See Anheuser Busch v. United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1907).
However, section 1313(j)(3) has no effect upon the commercial
interchangeability issue of 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2). Use in
accordance with section 1313(j)(3) does not eliminate eligibility
under sections 1313(j)(1) and (2). However, the commercial
interchangeability requirement of section 1313(j)(2) is a
separate issue from the section's "use" restriction. See HQ
227084, dated November 25, 1996; HQ 226473, dated March 19, 1996.
Berlin states that market values may also vary because of
the time of sale and the market into which the product is sold,
but provides no evidence of these changing conditions. In HQ
226074, dated September 29, 1995, we stated that "the fluctuation
of the market forces, such as supply and demand, for such
merchandise should be considered." In that case, "a company
representative stated that in January of 1994, it was the lowest
market for MTBE [Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether] in years and that
by January of 1995 the market had improved and the prices for
MTBE were a lot higher than the previous year." Because we found
no evidence to contradict these statements, we concluded that the
disparity in relative values was not significant. Berlin has
provided no such statement or documentation to conclude the same.
We note that percentage differences greater than that found in
this case have not been fatal to a finding of commercial
interchangeability when those differences have been adequately
accounted for. See HQ 225493 (discussing the broad range in
- 10 -
contract-prices and values of crude peanut oil). It is our
opinion that the relative values criterion has not been
satisfied.
Berlin further states that the foreign purchaser, because it
uses less highly automated production techniques, is able to use
the coil ends and non-conforming coil or sheet in its can-making
operations. The exported tinplate can be used by the foreign
fabricator to make the same products produced from tinplate by
U.S. can manufacturers. In fact, as stated above, the Weirton
(the author manages the sale of "secondary Tin Mill Products")
letter refers to the exported merchandise described as
"waste/waste" as "secondary," and further indicates that the
trade does not treat products described as "waste/waste"
interchangeably with tinplate in coil or sheet form (i.e.,
smaller yield due to defect).
As stated in HQ 227084, "[a]ny determination with respect to
commercial interchangeability must consider the entire commercial
situation . . . . To confine the analysis to the perspective of
the seller, and to ignore the perspective of the buyer (as well
as the totality of the commercial situation) would result in an
incomplete and flawed analysis and would not be a legitimate
analysis of the commercial interchangeability issue." The issue
is whether the imported and exported merchandise are commercially
interchangeable with each other--our analysis is not affected by
which of the articles are said to be commercially interchangeable
with the other. In looking at the entire commercial situation at
issue, it appears that a foreign purchaser that uses the same
production techniques as the importer would not want (or be able)
to use the exported articles. Based on the foregoing, there is
insufficient evidence to conclude that the imported and exported
articles are "commercially interchangeable."
Berlin contends that the standards for satisfying the
"commercial interchangeability" requirement should not be as
rigid as the "fungibility" test for steel products. See HQ
223533, dated March 2, 1992 (defining "commercially identical").
We agree, and note that the imported and exported tinplate would
not have been considered "fungible" under this test (not in the
same form, diameter or width). These differences would not,
however, have precluded a finding of "commercial
interchangeability" if there was sufficient evidence to account
for the possible difference in classification and the apparent
differences in relative values between the imported and exported
articles.
- 11 -
Berlin also cites our decision in HQ 222059, dated December
17, 1990 (cited as HQ 223533 in the protestant's brief), for the
proposition that "[e]ven under the fungibility standard for 'same
condition' substitution drawback, loss of value was not
necessarily a reason for denial of drawback." However, HQ 222059
did not concern the exportation of "substituted" merchandise, but
the exportation of imported diaries, appointment books and other
stationary items that were printed for a given calendar year.
After the year for which they were printed passed, the items lost
their commercial appeal, and much of their commercial value. We
held that a reduction in the commercial value of merchandise, by
itself, is immaterial to the same condition determination under
19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1). "Fungibility" was not an issue. As such,
HQ 222059 is not relevant to a determination under 19 U.S.C.
1313(j)(2).
Finally, Berlin contends that certain clerical errors found
in the Audit Report regarding drawback entry numbers C39-XXXX116-2 and C39-XXXX119-6 should be corrected. As stated above, on six
occasions, the auditor (mistakenly, according to the Audit
Report's standards) allowed drawback where the CWT price of the
export was less than the CWT price of the import, but denied
drawback where the CWT price of the export was greater than the
CWT price of the import.
In one instance, drawback was granted where the import was
listed at $53, while the export was listed at $22 (drawback entry
number C39-XXXX116-2). According to the Audit Report's
standards, the protestant is correct, as drawback should have
been denied. However, drawback should not have been denied
because the value of the import was greater than the value of the
export, but because the value of the import is more than twice
that of the export without explanation as to why we should
discount this difference. Drawback was incorrectly granted in
this instance.
With regard to the other five instances where the auditor
failed to follow the Audit Report standards, all involved smaller
relative value differences between import and export. In each
case, however, the auditor correctly denied eligibility (albeit
for the wrong reason), as there is insufficient evidence to
discount the difference in relative values.
Similarly, because of insufficient evidence regarding
relative values, drawback was also incorrectly granted in any
instance where the relative values were not a "perfect match"
(like that found in drawback entry number C39-XXXX119-6, where
drawback was granted when imports listed at $22 CWT were matched
- 12 -
with exports listed at $22 CWT, if the tariff classification of
this merchandise was the same).
3. Miscellaneous
There are several miscellaneous deficiencies in the
documentation provided in this claim that would preclude drawback
eligibility in these instances. Berlin has provided several
forms listing non-exports among those claimed to be eligible for
drawback. For example, destinations listed on the "Amended
Schedule B" for entry C39-XXXX119-6 include Flushing, New York,
and Cerritos, California. Destinations listed on the "Schedule
B" for entry C39-XXXX129-5 include Norwalk, California, Flushing,
New York, and Cerritos, California. Destinations listed on the
"Schedule B" for entry C39-XXXX116-2 include Norwalk, California.
Further, the export dates listed on this particular form (all in
1989) occurred prior to the designated imports (all in 1990).
See 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2)(B) (merchandise must be exported or
destroyed after importation). Finally, the "Schedule A" for
certain entries was either missing (C39-XXXX134-5, C39-XXXX122-0)
or unreadable (C39-XXXX121-2).
HOLDING:
There is insufficient evidence to find that the exported
merchandise described as "waste/waste," "w/w" or "misprints," was
not waste. Further, there is insufficient evidence to find that
the imported tinplate, in coil or sheet, and the exported
tinplate, in the form of coil ends and non-conforming sheet, are
"commercially interchangeable," except in situations where the
exported merchandise is not described as "waste/waste," "w/w" or
"misprints" and the relative values and tariff classification of
the import and export are the same. Finally, there are other
deficiencies on certain claims (i.e., non-exports, exports
occurring prior to imports) that would preclude drawback
eligibility. Accordingly, the protest should be DENIED.
In accordance with section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision, together with the Customs Form 19,
should be mailed by your office to the protestant no later than
60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the
entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior
to the mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the
decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to
make the decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs
Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette
- 13 -
Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act and other public
access channels.
Sincerely,
Director, International Trade
Compliance Division