CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 951101 CRS
S. Richard Shostak, Esq.
Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara
3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1240
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2597
RE: Request for reconsideration of HRL 087946; Protest No. 2704-
89-002301; swim sweater; San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co.
Dear Mr. Shostak:
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1992,
in which you requested reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling
Letter (HRL) 087946 of December 24, 1991.
FACTS:
HRL 087946 concerned an application for further review of
protest no 2704-89-002301. At issue was the classification of an
inflatable swimming vest known as a "swim sweater," designed for
children ages 2-6. The protested entries were liquidated under
subheading 6307.20.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA), under the provision for other made up
articles: lifejackets and lifebelts. As counsel for Kransco
Manufacturing, Inc., however, you argued that the swim sweater
was classifiable in subheading 4016.95.0000, HTSUSA, under the
provision for other articles of vulcanized rubber other than hard
rubber: other inflatable articles.
In HRL 087946 the protest was denied and the swim sweater
was classified in subheading 6114.30.3070, HTSUSA, under the
provision for other garments, knitted or crocheted: of man-made
fibers: other: other: women's or girls'.
In your letter of January 31, 1992, you requested that
formal denial of protest no. 2701-89-002301 be withheld pending
reconsideration of HRL 087946. Your request was received by this
office on February 5, 1992. Upon researching the matter we found
that the denial of the protest decision was mailed by the Los
Angeles/Long Beach District on February 6, 1992. In addition, we
note that a review of the protest file (087946) indicates that
you made no request for a meeting prior to your January letter.
ISSUE:
The issue presented is whether Customs may delay the effect
of a protest once the decision has been mailed to the protestant.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Customs has no authority to exercise jurisdiction over a
protest after it has been denied. San Francisco Newspaper
Printing Co. v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 738, 740 (1985); 9 CIT
517 (1985). HRL 087946 was issued by this office on December 24,
1991. Denial of the protest was mailed by the Los Angeles/Long
Beach District office on February 6, 1992. Since the request for
reconsideration was not received until February 5, 1992, however,
the protest was denied before this office had the opportunity to
act on your request. Accordingly, we are unable to grant your
request for reconsideration.
HOLDING:
Pursuant to the foregoing, your request for reconsideration
of HRL 087946 is denied.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division