CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 556166 WAW
District Director
1100 Paeseo Int'l Highway
Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, CA
RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 2501-0-000051
under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2)
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
disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the
administrative record, and protestant has not presented any
evidence in support of its counsel's assertions. The Customs
Service will not grant further review of a blanket protest.
Protestant must comply with the statutory and regulatory
requirements. Under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(1) a protest of a
decision must set forth distinctly and specifically each decision
as to which protest is made. See generally, United States v.
Parksmith Corp., 514 F.2d 1052, 62 C.C.P.A. 76 (1975); American
Commerce Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 812 (Cust. Ct. 1959);
United States v. E.H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A. 89 (1945).
In the instant case, counsel simply asserts that protestant
claims that "Fiberglass water vending cavinets assessed with duty
at 3.9% ad val under subheading 8476.90.0000-9, HTSUS, are
properly free of duty under subheading A8476.90.0000-9, HTSUS,
because they meet the requirements for GSP qualification.
Furthermore, counsel for the protestant stated that a memorandum
in support of the Application for Further Review would be filed
within sixty days after the filing of the protest (April 19,
1990). As of the present date, we have received no additional
information in support of the protestant's claim that the
fiberglass water vending cabinets are eligible for duty-free
treatment under the GSP. The Customs Regulations require that a
protest set forth the nature of, and justification for the
objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to
each claim. Section 174.13(a)(6), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
174.13(a)(6)). The Customs Service has and will continue to
fully consider any relevant allegation in a protest supported by
competent evidence. However, in acting on a protest, Customs
cannot and will not assume facts that are not presented (e.g., an
unsubstantiated claim that the foreign processing resulted in a
double substantial transformation).
Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, 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 (19 CFR
174.30(a)).
Sincerely,
John A. Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
cc: Otay Mesa Border Station
Attn: Stephanie Purser