LIQ-9-RR:CR:DR
227879 CK
Port Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
797 South Zaragosa Road
El Paso, Texas 79907
Attn: Kevin Cleere, Import Specialist
RE: Protest and Application for Further Review of no. 2402-97-100039; 19 U.S.C. 1520(d); Post-importation NAFTA claim;
Dear Sir:
The above-referenced protest was forwarded to our office for
further review. We have considered the points raised by your
office and the importer. Our decision follows:
FACTS:
General Motors Corporation (GMC) filed a protest on August
8, 1997 in response to the June 9, 1997 denial of their request
for reliquidation by the Port of El Paso. The Port of El Paso
refused to reliquidate and refund, duty paid in the amount of
$2400.65 collected on entry number 665-xxxx051-8.
The attached CF 6445A lists: the date of protest- 08/08/97;
entry number- 665-xxxx051-8; date of purchase or order- 02/10/97;
name of manufacturer and seller- Products Delco; city of origin-
Chihuahua; country of origin- Mexico; name of consignee- Delco
Chassis Div.; location of consignee- El Paso, Texas; exported
from- CD Juarez Chih, Mexico; date of exportation- 02/10/96; and
date of importation- 02/10/96. The subject of the protest is the
following:
Description of the
Merchandise
Protester's Claimed
Value or
Classification
Appraised Value or
Classification
DC Electric Motors
MX8501.31.4000 @
Free
8501.31.4000 @ 4.6%
The Port Director of El Paso denied the request for
reliquidation claiming that the period within which the importer
has to file claims pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) begins on the
date of importation. The Port's position is that this claim is
untimely because the date of importation of entry 665-xxxx051-8,
namely 02/10/96, means that the last day for a timely section
1520 (d) claim would have been 02/09/97, and the claim was filed
on 02/10/97.
The attached CF 19 lists General Motors Corporation as the
importer and protesting party, the date of entry as 02/10/96, the
entry being protested as 665-xxxx051-8, and the date of the
protest as August 8, 1997. GMC filed a claim by letter, on
February 10, 1997, regarding a NAFTA Refund under 1520(d). GMC
argues that the term "1 year after the date of importation," (19
U.S.C. 1520(d)) means that the 1 year begins either on, or one
day after, the date of importation, February 10, 1996, and ends
after the close of Customs business on February 10, 1997. The
Protestant argues the post importation NAFTA claim was timely
filed for entry 665-xxxx051-8, on February 10, 1997.
Attached to the file is a letter, date stamped received by
the U.S. Customs Service, Port of El Paso, on February 10, 1997.
The letter is on GMC stationery, making a Post-Importation NAFTA
claim and request for refund of duties in the amount of
$6,118.23, for the period of 02/10/96 to 02/15/96. With this
letter is a printout of four entries, the import date, and the
duty refund sought. The protested entry is the first entry
listed on the page.
Also attached is a reply from the El Paso port, allowing in
part, and denying in part GMC's claim for refund. Three of the
entries were reliquidated and duty refunded, however, the protest
entry was denied as untimely.
The attached CF 7501 for entry number 665-xxxx051-8, lists
as the importer and consignee of record a, GMC, Delco Chassis
Div.; entry date as 02/10/96, export date as 02/10/96; exporting
country as MX; country of origin as Multi; and there are 7 lines
of merchandise listed. The merchandise that is the subject of
this protest are found on lines 3 and 6. Line 3 states, DC
Motors, HTSUS 8501.31.4000, net quantity of 9252.00 NO, entered
value of $26,727.00, with an ad valorem rate of 4.6%, with a duty
of $1229.44. Line 6 states, DC Motors, HTSUS 8501.31.4000, net
quantity of 8754.00, entered value of $25,461.00, with an ad
valorem rate of 4.6%, with a duty of $1171.21.
Also provided is a printout entitled, "consolidation sheet",
for entry date 02/10/96, entry number 665-xxxx051-8, GMC, Delco
Chassis Div. The sheet list 18 lines of merchandise, and is
grouped into 4 sets by invoice number. Two different invoices
refer to the protest merchandise. Invoice numbers 904xxxx-7 /
PT-001459, has 4 lines of the protested merchandise:
N/D value
N/D
number
Duty
value
Harmonized code
Quantity
Part
number
$53,788.68
9802.00.
8065
$13,363.36
8501.31.
4000
4624.00
18022245
$58,834.85
9802.00.
8065
$13,363.36
8501.31.
4000
4624.00
18024097
$1.07
9802.00.
8065
$.38
8501.31.
4000
2.00
22091947
$1.07
9802.00.
8065
$.38
8501.31.
4000
2.00
22104778
The second invoice referencing the protest merchandise is
PT-001460, has 5 lines of the protested merchandise:
N/D value
N/D
number
Duty
value
Harmonized code
Quantity
Part
number
$72,772.92
9802.00.
8065
$18,079.84
8501.31.
4000
6256.00
18022245
$13,843.49
9802.00.
8065
$3,144.32
8501.31.
4000
1088.00
18024097
$15,697.25
9802.00.
8065
$3,930.40
8501.31.
4000
1360.00
18024187
$1087.43
9802.00.
8065
$249.00
8501.31.
4000
30.00
18024444
$230.84
9802.00.
8065
$57.80
8501.31.
4000
20.00
18024481
The second page of the printout has a summary for each
invoice number. Invoice number PT-001459 has a total duty
amount of $26,727.48, with a total quantity amount of 9252.00.
Invoice number PT-001460 has a total duty amount of $25,461.36,
with a total quantity amount of 8754.00.
Also included is an Entry/Immediate Delivery sheet, with
entry number 665-xxxx091-7, listing 4 lines of merchandise, and
the last line is the protested merchandise- 8501.31.4000 MX.
Included also, are printouts of the invoices themselves
which are entitled, "PRODUCTOS DELCO DE CHIHUAHUA, SA DE CV."
One is entry number 665-xxxx091-7, invoice number PT-001459, and
is dated February 10, 1996, which covers the merchandise listed
on line 3 of the CF 7501. The first product listed is: 153 trays
of part number 18022245, which is AntiLock Breaking System
Assembly, total quantity of 4,624, a billing price of $13,363.36,
and it consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.01310
60.57
60.57
8501.31.4000-
668.16
5%
2.89000
13363.36
13363.36
9802.00.8065
Free
11.63250
53788.68
53788.68
The second product listed is: 153 trays of part number
18024097, which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total
quantity of 4,624, has a billing price of $13,363.36, and
consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.02380
110.05
110.05
8501.31.4000-
668.16
5%
2.89000
13363.36
13363.36
9802.00.8065
Free
12.72380
58834.85
58834.85
The third product listed is: 1 box of part number 22091947,
which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total quantity of 2,
has a billing price of $.38, and consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.02380
.04
.04
8501.31.4000- .01
5%
.19200
.38
.38
9802.00.8065
Free
.53853
1.07
1.07
The fourth product listed consists of part number 22104778,
which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total quantity of 2,
has a billing price of $.38, and consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.02380
.04
.04
8501.31.4000- .01
5%
.19200
.38
.38
9802.00.8065
Free
.53853
1.07
1.07
Attached is an unsigned document with the heading, "BODEGA,
PRODUCTOS DELCO DE CHIHUAHUA, SA DE CV, " dated Friday, February
9, 1996. It also states, "DELCO CHASSIS D, trl # 601689,
003749." The pages contains a chart which includes the following
information:
Numero
Parte;
Clase
Cant
Descrip-cion
Cada
Total
P. Br.
P. Nt.
22104778
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
2
2
1
1
22091947; Box
1
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
2
2
1
1
18022245;
Trays
144
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
30
4,352
9,611
8,818
18022245;
Trays
9
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
30
272
601
551
18024097
153
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
30
4,624
13,798
12,658
Finally, also attached is a "FOREIGN ASSEMBLERS
DECLARATION," for invoice number PT- 001459, signed by a Customs
broker on behalf of the Chihuahua plant that the AntiLock
Breaking System Assembly was assembled in whole or in part from
the fabricated components as follows: on 10/03/95- parts
22091947, 22104778, and on 10/05/95- parts 18022245, 18022245,
and 18024097, totaling 9,252 pieces. The statement is signed and
dated, February 10, 1996.
In regards to the merchandise listed on line 6 of the CF
7501, submitted as evidence is an Entry/Immediate Delivery sheet,
with entry number 665-xxxx092-5, listing 4 lines of merchandise,
and the last line is the protested merchandise- 8501.31.4000 MX.
Included is a printout of the invoice which is entitled,
"PRODUCTOS DELCO DE CHIHUAHUA, SA DE CV." One is entry number
665-xxxx092-5, invoice number PT-001460, and dated February 10,
1996. The first product listed is: 207 trays of part number
18022245, which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total
quantity of 6,256, has a billing price of $18,079.84, and
consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.01310
81.95
60.57
8501.31.4000-
903.99
5%
2.89000
18079.84
18079.84
9802.00.8065
Free
11.63250
72772.92
72772.92
The second product listed is: 36 trays of part number
18024097, which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total
quantity of 1,088, has a billing price of $3,144.32, and consists
of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.02380
25.89
25.89
8501.31.4000-
157.21
5%
2.89000
3,144.32
3,144.32
9802.00.8065
Free
12.72380
13843.49
13843.49
The third product listed is: 45 trays of part number
18024187, which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total
quantity of 1,360, has a billing price of $3,930.40, and consists
of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.01310
17.81
17.81
8501.31.4000-
196.52
5%
2.89000
3,930.40
3,930.40
9802.00.8065
Free
11.54210
15697.25
15697.25
The fourth product listed consists of part number 18024444,
which is EHA-1, total quantity of 30, has a billing price of
$249.00, and consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.01310
.39
.39
8501.31.4000-
12.45
5%
8.30000
249.00
249.00
9802.00.8065
Free
36.24780
1,087.43
1,087.43
The fifth product listed is: 2 trays of part number
18024481, which is AntiLock Breaking System Assembly, total
quantity of 20, has a billing price of $57.80, and consists of:
Desc.
Class:
Duty
rate
Unit
value
Total
value
Comp-onent
value
Packing
value
Dutiable
9801.00.1098
Free
.01310
.26
.26
8501.31.4000-
2.89
5%
2.89000
57.80
57.80
9802.00.8065
Free
11.54210
230.84
230.84
Attached is an unsigned document the heading, "BODEGA (ELP,
TX), PRODUCTOS DELCO DE CHIHUAHUA, SA DE CV, " dated Friday,
February 10, 1996. It also states, "DELCO CHASSIS D, trl #
602006, 003752." The pages contains a chart which includes the
following information:
Numero
Parte;
Clase
Cant
Descrip-cion
Cada
Total
P. Br.
P. Nt.
18022245;
Trays
207
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
30
6,256
13,816
12,676
18024097;
Trays
36
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
30
1,088
3,247
2,978
18024187;
Trays
45
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
30
1,360
2,984
2,737
18024444;
Trays
2
EHA-1
15
30
49
45
18024481
2
Anti-lock
breaking Sys.
Ass.
10
20
44
40
Finally, also attached is a "FOREIGN ASSEMBLERS
DECLARATION," for invoice number PT- 001460, signed by a Customs
broker on behalf of the Chihuahua plant that the AntiLock
Breaking System Assembly was assembled in whole or in part from
the fabricated components as follows: on 10/05/95- parts
18022245, 18024097, 18024187, 18024444 and on 02/10/96- part
18024481, totaling 8,754 pieces. The statement is signed and
dated, February 10, 1996.
Included with the protest is a letter dated January 9, 1996
to the Port of El Paso seeking a Marking requirement waiver for
the imported goods. The letter is stamped, and signed by an
Import Specialist, "MARKING WAIVER UNTIL 1/9/97 ONLY IF no
geographic location such as U.S. AMERICAN, U.S.A., or any
variation of such words or the name of any city or locality in
the U.S. appears on imported article or its container."
Finally, also attached to the protest are invoices, and
documents for invoice numbers MD- 000838, and -000537, however
the products listed are not part of the protest at hand.
ISSUES:
1. Is the denial of a section 1520 (d) claim a valid
protest issue?
2. Was the section 1520 (d) claim timely?
3. Is this a valid claim for NAFTA eligibility?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
ISSUE #1:
Under 19 U.S.C. 1514, (with certain exceptions not
applicable in this matter) certain listed decisions (including
the legality of all orders and findings entering into the same)
of the Customs Service are final and conclusive on all persons
unless a protest is filed in accordance with section 1514, or
unless a civil action contesting the denial of a protest, in
whole or in part, is commenced in the United States Court of
International Trade in accordance with chapter 169 of Title 28,
United States Code. The decisions (listed in section 1514(a);
also listed in 19 C.F.R. 174.11 as "[m]atters subject to
protest") are:
(1) the appraised value of merchandise;
(2) the classification and rate and amount of duties
chargeable;
(3) all charges or exactions of whatever character within
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury;
(4) the exclusion of merchandise from entry or delivery or a
demand for redelivery to customs custody under any provision of
the customs laws, except a determination appealable under [19
U.S.C. 1337];
(5) the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or
reconciliation as to the issues contained therein, or any
modification thereof;
(6) the refusal to pay a claim for drawback; or
(7) the refusal to reliquidate an entry under [19 U.S.C.
1520(c)].
The procedures for filing a protest of one of the above
decisions are provided in 19 U.S.C. 1514(c). Section 1514(c)(1)
provides that only one protest may be filed for each entry of
merchandise (with certain exceptions inapplicable in this
matter). Section 1514(c)(3) provides that a protest of a
decision, order, or finding described in section 1514(a) shall be
filed with Customs within 90 days after but not before the notice
of liquidation or reliquidation or the date of the decision as to
which protest is made (if the requirement for filing within 90
days before the notice of liquidation or reliquidation is
inapplicable).
Under 19 U.S.C. 1515, "[u]pon the request of the protesting
party ... a protest may be subject to further review by another
appropriate customs officer, under the circumstances and in the
form and manner that may be prescribed ... in regulations".
The Customs Regulations pertaining to protests, issued under
the above statutes, are found in 19 C.F.R. Part 174. Under 19
C.F.R. 174.24, further review (as provided for in 19 U.S.C.
1515) shall be accorded a party when the decision against which
the protest was filed, among other things, is alleged to involve
questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the
Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts.
Under 19 C.F.R. 174.26(b), a protest with an application for
further review shall be reviewed (as pertinent to the grounds
under which further review was requested in this matter) by the
Commissioner of Customs or his designee if the protest and
application for further review raise an issue involving questions
which have not been the subject of a Customs ruling or court
decision.
In this case, the Port Director's denial of the Protestant's
claim for post-entry preferential NAFTA treatment under section
1520 (d) is a protestable issue. The Port Director made a
determination, and decision regarding the classification of the
merchandise that is the basis of the protest. That decision is
protestable under 19 U.S.C. 1514 (a) (2). Additionally, the
protest was filed within the required 90 days of the Customs
determination that gave rise to the protest.
ISSUE # 2:
The issue involved here is whether the one-year anniversary
of the date of importation is within one year of the importation.
The count for the 1 year 1520(d) period begins the day after
the date of importation. A calender year is 365 days, therefore,
if the count begins the day after the date of importation, then
the one-year anniversary of that posting would be within one-year. 86 C.J.S. 13(8) states in regards to time computation,
"Under the general or common-law for reckoning a period of time
within which an act is to be done, the first day is to be
excluded from the computation and the last day is to be
included..... the rule applies in the construction of
constitutional provisions, in the construction of statutes fixing
time, and in the construction of municipal charters." (p.860)
Furthermore, numerous courts have decided the issue of
timeliness in regards to statutory time limits. In United States
v. Hurlburt & Sons, 11 Ct. Cust. App. 24 (1921) (T.D. 38638) the
court stated, " Proceeding then upon the view that the time of
entry,' as named in the statute signifies simply the day of the
entry, we next conclude that the period of one year from the
time of entry' as allowed thereby was intended by Congress to be
a full year exclusive of the day of entry, that is of the
terminus a quo.'" The court in Hurlburt also quoted Justice
Field in Sheets v. Shelden (69 U.S. 177, 190) where he stated,
"The general current of the modern authorities on the
interpretation of contracts, and also of statutes, where time is
to be computed from a particular day or a particular event, as
when an act is to be performed within a specified period from or
after a day named, is to exclude the day thus designated, and to
include the last day of the specified period." In both Hawaiian
Oke & Liquors v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 58 (1952) (C.D.
1388), and Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. United States, 30
Cust. Ct. 424 (1953), the court heard arguments on motions to
dismiss based on the untimely filing of protests where the last
day to timely file a protest fell on a weekend. In both cases
the court cites to F.R.Civ.P 6(a) which states in regard to the
computation of time, "In computing any period of time, prescribed
or allowed by these rules, by order of the court, or by any
applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default after
which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be
included. The last day of the period so computed is to be
included, unless it is a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which
event the period runs until the end of the next day which is
neither a Sunday nor a holiday."
Here, the date of importation was 02/10/96, and the 1520
(d) claim was filed on 02/10/97. The count for the one-year
period began on 02/11/96, the day after the date of importation,
which would make 02/10/97, within one year of the liquidation.
In conclusion, we find that the claim is timely filed according
to the one-year requirement.
ISSUE #3:
As to whether the protest should be granted regarding post-importation claim for preferential NAFTA treatment, 19 U.S.C.
1520 (d), which concerns post-importation duty refund claims for
goods qualifying under the NAFTA rules of origin, provides as
follows:
(d) Notwithstanding the fact that a valid
protest was not filed, the Customs Service may, in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, reliquidate an entry to refund any excess
duties paid on a good qualifying under the rules of
origin set out in section 202 of the North American
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act for which no
claim for preferential tariff treatment was made at
the time of importation if the importer, within 1
year after the date of importation, files, in
accordance with those regulations, a claim that
includes--
(1) a written declaration that the good
qualified under those rules at the time of
importation;
(2) copies of all applicable NAFTA
Certificates of Origin (as defined in section
508(b)(1)); and
(3) such other documentation relating to
the importation of the goods as the Customs Service
may require.
The regulation issued under 19 U.S.C. 1520 (d) can be found
in 19 CFR, Part 181, Subpart D.
In a response to a request for Internal Advice, this office
in HQ 227127, stated that Customs may reliquidate an entry to
refund duties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520 (d) only for claims
which bear directly on the issue of preferential treatment for
the goods in question. The response went on to say that 1520 (d)
permits Customs to reliquidate an entry to correct a limited
situation which otherwise could not be corrected -- to refund
excess duties paid on qualifying goods "for which no claim for
preferential tariff treatment was made at the time of
importation." This section allows Customs to reliquidate an
entry where, for example, an importer fails to claim NAFTA
preferential treatment due to a classification error. See HQ
957575, dated July 10, 1995;
HQ 226567, dated June 14, 1996. Furthermore, the legislative
history of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, indicated that the cause of the excess duty payment
specified in 1520 (d) must be the failure to confer preferential
treatment to the goods. The House Ways & Means Committee Report,
103d Congress, 1st Session, Rept. 103-361, Part 1 (November 15,
1993), provides that "[s]ection 206 H.R. 3450 [the North American
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act] amends section 520 of
the Tariff Act to authorize the Customs Service to reliquidate an
entry to refund any excess duties paid and provide NAFTA
treatment to the entry." Therefore, a post-importation duty
refund claim may be granted where the claim involves
classification, valuation, or other issues that bear directly on
the issue of whether the good would have qualified as an
originating good.
The first requirement of 19 U.S.C. 1520 (d) is that no claim
for preferential treatment was made at the time of importation.
19 CFR 181.21 states how a claim for preferential tariff
treatment for a good under the NAFTA is to be made. It states,
"the written declarartion may be made by including on the entry
summary, or equivalent documentation, the symbol CA' for a good
of Canada, or the symbol MX' for a good of Mexico, as a prefix
to the subheading of he HTSUS under which each qualifying good is
classified." On the CF 7501 filed by GMC at the time of
importation, column 28, for lines 3 and 6, which lists the
protested merchandise, DC motors, there are the initials "MX."
However, in column 30, where the claimed HTSUS number is listed,
there is no "MX" prefix. Moreover, the Special Column for
subheading 8501.31.40, HTSUS (1996 ed.) shows that goods entitled
to the NAFTA preference would have been duty-free. The entry
papers show that the goods were entered dutiable at the MFN rate.
Therefore, the evidence shows that at the time of importation GMC
did not make a claim for preferential tariff treatment under the
NAFTA, and it meets the first requirement of the statute.
The second requirement for a claim under 19 U.S.C. 1520 (d),
is that copies of all applicable NAFTA Certificates of Origin
(as defined in section 508(b)(1)) be filed with the claimed
classification. The corresponding regulation is 19 CFR
181.31(a)(2), which lists the required contents of the claim, and
it states, "subject to 181.22(d) of this part, a copy of each
Certificate of Origin (see 181.11 of this part) pertaining to
the good;" is required to make a valid claim.
19 CFR 181.22(b)(1) states that a Certificate of Origin
submitted by an importer who claims preferential tariff treatment
under 181.21 of this part, "shall be on Customs Form 434,
including privately-printed copies thereof, or on such other form
as approved by the Canadian or Mexican customs administration, or
as an alternative to Customs Form 434 or such other approved
form, in an approved computerized format or such other medium or
format as is approved by the Office of Field Operations. . ."
In this case, GMC has provided copies of its invoices, along
with the CF 7501 on which the importation was made, and an
Assembler's Declaration of Origin. Yet, the documents provided
are unclear. The entered goods in issue are described on the
entry summary as DC motors. The documents, which also reference
entries not included in this protest, describe the merchandise as
Antilock Braking System Assemblies. The connection between the
motors entered and the antilock braking system invoiced requires
clarification. In any event, GMC has failed to provide
Certificates of Origin for the merchandise that is the subject of
this dispute, DC motors. When GMC filed its 1520(d) claim for
prefential tariff treatment it should have filed a Customs Form
434, Certificate of Origin, for the merchandise in dispute, DC
motors. Since, GMC did not provide the Certificates of Origin it
was required by the statute and regulations, their claim and
protest must be DENIED.
HOLDINGS:
1. The denial of a 19 U.S.C. 1520 (d) claim is a valid and
protestable issue under 19 U.S.C. 1514, since it was a final
decision of the Customs service.
2. The one-year anniversary of the date of importation is
"within one-year" for the protest time limit purpose of 19 U.S.C.
1520 (d).
3. The 19 U.S.C.1520 (d) claim for preferential tariff
treatment under the NAFTA is DENIED since the Protestant failed
to provide copies of Certificates of Origin for the merchandise
that is the subject of the protest, as is required by the statute
and the regulations.
In accordance with Section 3A(11) (b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed, with the Customs Form
19, 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
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
Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act, and other
public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division