CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 957148 SK
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
4477 Woodson Road, Rm. 200
St Louis, MO 63134-3716
RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4501-
93-100047; classification of engagement book; organizer; day/week
planner; agenda; dairy; not "similar to" a diary; 4820.10.2010,
HTSUSA; Fred Baumgarten v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 275, Abs.
67150 (1962); Brooks Bros. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 91, C.D.
4342 (1972); Charles Scribner's Sons v. United States, 574 F. Supp.
1058; 6 C.I.T. 168 (1983). HRL's 089960 (2/10/92); 952691
(1/11/93); 953172 (3/19/93); 953413 (3/29/93); 955253 (11/10/93);
955199 (1/24/94); 955636 (4/6/94); 955637 (4/6/94); 955516
(4/8/94).
Dear Sir:
This is a decision on application for further review of a
protest timely filed on October 14, 1993, by Sidney H. Kuflik of
the law firm of Lamb & Lerch, on behalf of his client, the Mead
Corporation, against your decision regarding the classification of
day/week planners, also referred to as organizers or agendas.
Twenty four entries of the subject merchandise were made at the
port at Kansas City between the dates of April 16 and June 21,
1993. These entries were liquidated between August 6 and October
8, 1993.
Counsel raises substantive legal arguments pertaining to the
validity of the liquidation of these articles as "dairies" under
subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA.
A supplemental submission relating to the classification of
this merchandise was sent to this office by Mr. Kuflik on September
22, 1994.
FACTS:
The articles at issue are described as "day planners." The
style numbers the subject of this protest are 47062, 47064, 47066,
47068, 47102, 47103, 47104, 47105, 47106, 47107, 47122, 47124,
47126, 47128, 47130, 47132, 47134, 47136, 47138, 47140, 47142,
47144, 47172, 47174, 47176, 47178 and 47180. Samples of style
numbers 47062 and 47104 were submitted to this office along with
generalized information about the day planners. Some of the day
planners contain three-ring binders which are inserted into a
pocket on the inside of the jacket cover. These articles contain
calendar planners, daily planners, sections designated for
address/telephone information, blank note pads, rulers, plastic
business card holders and graph note pads.
All twenty four entries of the subject merchandise were
liquidated by Customs under subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA, as
bound diaries, dutiable at a rate of 4 percent ad valorem.
Protestant contends that the day planners are properly
classifiable under subheading 4820.10.4000, HTSUSA, and entitled
to duty free entry. In support of this contention, protestant
states:
1) the day planners at issue are not diaries per se, but rather
articles "similar to" diaries, and therefore classification is
precluded from subheading 4820.10.20, HTSUSA; and
2) even if these articles are deemed to be diaries, they are not
"bound" diaries and therefore classification is precluded from
subheading 4820.10.20, HTSUSA.
ISSUES:
Whether the day planners are classifiable as diaries of
subheading 4820.10.20, HTSUSA, or as articles similar to diaries
under subheading 4820.10.40, HTSUSA?
Whether the articles at issue are considered bound?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is governed by
the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that
classification shall be determined according to the terms of the
headings and any relative section or chapter notes, taken in order.
Merchandise that cannot be classified in accordance with GRI 1 is
to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRI's.
I. ARE THE DAY PLANNERS CLASSIFIABLE AS "DIARIES"
OR AS ARTICLES "SIMILAR TO" DIARIES?"
The determinative issue is whether the subject merchandise is
classifiable as bound "diaries" under subheading 4820.10.2010,
HTSUSA, or as "similar to" diaries under subheading 4820.10.4000,
HTSUSA. This issue has been addressed in several rulings by this
office. See Headquarters Ruling Letters (HRL's) 089960 (2/10/92);
952691 (1/11/93); 953172 (3/19/93); 953413 (3/29/93); 955253
(11/10/93); 955199 (1/24/94); 955636 (4/6/94); 955637 (4/6/94); and
955516 (4/8/94). In these rulings, this office has consistently
determined that articles similar in design and/or function to the
instant merchandise are classifiable as diaries. The rationale for
this determination was based on lexicographic sources, as well as
extrinsic evidence of how these types of articles are treated in
the trade and commerce of the United States.
In counsel's original memorandum of law in support of the Mead
Corporations' protest, it is contended that "Customs Headquarters
has at no time even remotely suggested that day planners are
diaries per se." We disagree. In HRL 089960, this office
unequivocally stated that "subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA,
provides for bound diaries and address books." The holding in that
ruling determined the leather agenda then at issue to be
classifiable under subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA. In HRL 952691,
issued to Mead Corporation, Customs held that when the "Personal
Day Planner" then at issue was examined "in light of Heading 4820,
HTSUSA, the common dictionary definition of 'diary', and past
Customs rulings, it appears that the item is classifiable as a
bound diary... ." In HRL 953172, this office determined that the
day planners then at issue "fall squarely within the dictionary
definition of diary... ." This sentiment was also expressed in HRL
953413. We note that all these rulings were issued before the
date of counsel's first submission of legal arguments to Customs.
In all of the rulings cited supra, Customs held that articles
synonymously referred to as diaries, planners, agendas, organizers
and engagement books, most of which incorporated the same or
similar components as the subject merchandise (i.e., day/week
planners, address/telephone sections, blank sections for notes),
fit squarely within the definition of "diary" as set forth in the
Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 1987. That
definition reads:
2. A book prepared for keeping a daily record, or
having spaces with printed dates for daily memoranda
and jottings; also applied to calendars containing
daily memoranda on matters of importance to people
generally or to members of a particular profession,
occupation, or pursuit.
In counsel's supplementary submission to this office, dated
September 22, 1994, it is argued that Customs should base its
classification of the subject merchandise solely on the first
definition of "diary" presented in the Oxford English Dictionary,
which reads:
1. A daily record of events or transactions, a
journal, specially, a daily record of matters
affecting the writer personally, or which come
under his personal observation.
In response to this claim, we wish to stress two points.
First, Customs is not obligated to limit its reliance on
lexicographic sources to the first definition presented for a given
word. Reference to lexicographic sources is a means to ascertain
the commonly accepted definition or definitions, for a word or
term. It broadens our understanding of a word so as to arrive at
a more accurate classification. Many words have several
definitions and Customs may consider any or all of them when making
a classification determination. Second, we note that the narrower
definition of "diary," as set forth in the Oxford English
Dictionary's first definition, connotes an article containing blank
pages used to record extensive notations of one's daily activities.
This is not the sole format for a diary. The word "diary" also
connotes a more formal and comprehensive approach to recordkeeping.
The broader concept of diary includes those articles
classified in HRL's 955636 and 955637, both dated April 6, 1994.
In those rulings Customs determined that the classification of day
planners as diaries reflects the common and commercial identity of
these items in the marketplace. In HRL 955636, Customs classified
day planners that were similar in function to the articles
currently at issue. The covers of the day planners classified in
HRL 955636 were conspicuously and indelibly printed with the legend
"1994 Desk Diary." As we noted in that ruling, it stands to reason
that the publisher would not have gone to the added expense of
printing "1994 Desk Diary" on these articles' covers, nor risked
alienating potential customers, if the articles were not indeed
recognized as diaries in the marketplace. The fact remains that
these articles must be considered a recognized form of diary if a
manufacturer in the industry labels the articles as such and
purposely presents them in such a manner to the consumer. This
fact is pertinent in the instant analysis because the articles
marketed as diaries in HRL 955636 and the Mead planners at issue
are similar in material respects; both articles contain day and
week planners with spaces to record appointments and various
notations, sections for address and telephone numbers and blank
sections for notes.
As the overall design and function of the HRL 955636 diaries and
the Mead planners are the same, and the former are marketed to
consumers as diaries and recognized in the trade as such, it is
reasonable to conclude that the Mead planners are similarly deemed
to be diaries in the trade and commerce of the United States.
Further evidence that day planners are treated as a form of
diary in the trade and commerce of the United States is provided
by current advertisements run in The New Yorker magazine. The
New Yorker regularly displays full-page advertisements for its
"1994 New Yorker Desk Diary." The diary depicted in the
advertisement appears to have a similar function to the planners
under review. The advertisement's copy reads:
"Since you depend on a diary every day of the year,
pick the one that's perfect for you ... [R]ecognize
what's important to you: a week at a glance, a ribbon
marker, lie flat binding (spiral), lots of space to
write."
In counsel's supplementary submission it is argued that the
"1994 New Yorker Desk Diary" differs from the Mead planners at
issue. Counsel contends that the New Yorker Desk Diary warrants
classification as a diary in that its address book and note pad
section are "relatively minor and incidental elements," and that
these components comprise less than 10 percent of the diary's
volume. Counsel submits that the Mead planner is different in that
it is not marketed specifically as a diary, the address book and
note pad components are refillable, the "non-diary" components cost
more than the diary features, and "the day planner's essential
character is no longer exclusively derived from its diary
function."
We address counsel's arguments in the order set forth above.
First, an examination of the New Yorker Diary reveals that it
contains far more extraneous information and components than merely
an address book and note book, yet it still primarily functions as
a diary. As is discussed later in this ruling, this is the
standard that the Court of International Trade used to determine
whether an article was classifiable as a dairy. Second, the fact
that the New Yorker Diary is labeled and marketed as a diary is
persuasive evidence of the article's identity; however, the mere
fact that an article is not specifically labeled a diary does not
preclude it from classification as such. Third, we see no
relevance in the fact that the components in the Mead planners are
refillable. Counsel argues that the ability to replace components
is "strong indicia that the features are not merely complementary
to the diary portion of the day planner... ." We do not agree.
The fact that certain components are refillable may indicate only
that the outer cover of the diary is expensive and durable enough
so as to warrant use for several years. Lastly, the fact that the
extraneous components in the Mead planners cost more than the pages
to be used for written notations is irrelevant. The relative cost
of the components is not pertinent to classification in situations
where we have a court-imposed standard which requires that a
dairy's distinguishing feature be its suitability for the receipt
of daily notations. See Fred Baumgarten v. United States, 49 Cust.
Ct. 275, Abs. 67150 (1962). Paper inserts will invariably be the
least expensive components of a diary. In many instances, the cost
of the outer cover will be the most expensive component and yet the
article will be classified as a diary, and not as a binder, so long
as it primarily functions as a site for the daily recordation of
notes and appointments.
The Court of International Trade has spoken to the issue of
what constitutes a diary for classification purposes. In Fred
Baumgarten v. United States, the court dealt with the
classification of a plastic-covered book which was similar in
overall function to the articles currently under review. In
Baumgarten, the court determined the correct classification of an
article which measured approximately 4-1/4 inches by 7-3/8 inches
and contained pages for "Personal Memoranda," calendars for the
years 1960-1962, statistical tables, and 20-odd pages set aside
for telephone numbers and addresses. The majority of the book
consisted of ruled pages allocated to the days of the year and the
hours of the day. A blank lined page, inserted at the end of each
month's section, was captioned "Notes." The court held that this
article was properly classified by Customs under item 256.56,
Tariff Schedules of the United States, which provided for "[B]lank
books, bound: diaries," at a duty rate of 20 percent ad valorem.
In that ruling, the court held:
"the particular distinguishing feature of a
diary is its suitability for the receipt of
daily notations; and in this respect, the books
here in issue are well described. By virtue of
the allocation of spaces for hourly entries
during the course of each day of the year,
the books are designed for that very purpose.
That the daily events to be chronicled may also
include scheduled appointments would not detract
from their general character as appropriate volumes
for the recording of daily memoranda." [emphasis added]
The Baumgarten Court's analysis and holding, if applied to
the merchandise at issue, yields a similar finding: the articles
at issue are properly classifiable as bound diaries of subheading
4820.10.2010, HTSUSA, inasmuch as their distinguishing feature is
their suitability for the receipt of daily notations. As with the
articles at issue in Baumgarten, the Mead day planners contain
allocated spaces for daily and hourly entries. Moreover,
these diaries contain even more available writing space than did
the articles deemed to be diaries in Baumgarten, arguably rendering
the subject merchandise even more suitable for "the receipt of
daily notations."
As stated supra, the court in Baumgarten determined that the
distinguishing feature of a diary is its suitability for the
receipt of daily notations. The merchandise at issue, as is the
case with most articles described as planners, organizers, agendas,
engagement books, etc., contains information pages or interior
components such as card holders, rulers and the like, which do not
directly relate to the function of receiving written notations.
The issue of whether the presence of extraneous material (i.e.,
weights and measure charts, conversion charts, "Year-at-a-Glance"
calendars, maps, telephone area codes, rulers, card holders, etc.
...) precludes classification as a diary was discussed in Brooks
Bros. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 91, C.D. 4342 (1972). In that
case, the court dealt with the proper classification of an article
described as "The Economist Diary." The plaintiff in Brooks Bros.
argued that although "The Economist Diary" was in part a diary, it
contained many pages useful solely for the information presented
and therefore was not classifiable as a bound diary, but rather as
a book consisting of printed matter or, in the alternative, a bound
blank book. The court noted:
[N]otwithstanding plaintiff's efforts to demonstrate
that the Economist Diary is not a diary but a 'book of
facts,' an examination of the diary reveals that there
are more blank pages, used for recording events and
appointments, than there are pages containing information
.... [T]he article is a diary which contains certain
informational material in order
to render it more useful to the particular class
of buyers it seeks to attract. It is to be noted
that the exhibits introduced at the trial, that are
conceded to be 'diaries,' also contain 'informational
material,' ... [T]his additional material admittedly
does not change their essential character as 'diaries."
[emphasis added]
The Brooks Bros. Court concluded that "The Economist Diary"
was properly classified by Customs as a diary and that this
conclusion was "strengthened by the fundamental principle of
customs law that an eo nomine designation of an article without
limitation includes all forms of that article." As subheading
4820.10.2010, HTSUSA, eo nomine provides for bound diaries, and
the articles at issue fit the Oxford English Dictionary's
definition of diary, and are similar in function to the articles
the courts in Baumgarten and Brooks Bros. found to be bound
diaries, this office is of the opinion that the subject merchandise
is properly classifiable as bound diaries under this subheading.
We think it imperative to recognize that there are many forms
of "diaries." They may have outer covers of plastic, leather,
paper or textile material. They may contain an array of components
such as rulers, business card holders, pens, pencils, calculators
and assorted inserts that are used either for providing information
or as a means of recording specific types of information (i.e.,
sections for fax numbers, car maintenance information, personal
finance data, etc. ...). As the court in Brooks Bros. noted,
citing Hancock Gross, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D.
3965 (1970), "[T]he primary design and function of an article
controls its classification." Hence, the determinative criteria
as to whether these types of articles are deemed "diaries" for
classification purposes is whether they are primarily designed for
use as, or primarily function as, articles for the receipt of daily
notations, events and appointments.
In counsel's supplementary submission to this office, it is
argued that in light of a recent court decision, Nestle
Refrigerated Food Company v. United States, Slip. Op. 94-118 (CIT,
July 20, 1994), Customs should rethink its approach to the
classification of diaries which contain extraneous components
unrelated to the recordation of daily notes and appointments. In
Nestle, the court dealt with the issue of whether a canned tomato
product containing other ingredients was classifiable as "tomatoes,
whole or in the piece," as "preparation for sauce," or as "tomato
sauce." Counsel submits that the analysis required of the court
in Nestle closely mirrors the situation in the instant case in that
we must determine whether the subject articles, by virtue of their
added extraneous elements, cease to be diaries and have become
articles "similar to" diaries. Specifically, counsel argues that
the presence of the zipper pouch, ruler, business card holder,
address book and note pad serve to remove the Mead planners from
the realm of "diary" and render them "similar to" diaries. Counsel
states that these features are not "complementary to the diary
definitional base" and "alter the essence of the article so that
the day planners' essential character is no longer exclusively
derived from its diary function."
There are several problems with this analogy. First, the
court in Nestle merely acknowledged that optional ingredients "must
serve to complement, highlight, and not overwhelm, the essential
character of the tomatoes," so as not to render the entire product
more akin to a preparation for sauce, or the sauce itself. The
court further noted that, "[W]hen too much of an optional
ingredient or a combination of optional ingredients are added to
tomatoes ... the tomato component is materially altered"
and "the product can no longer be deemed to be just tomatoes."
The Nestle Court's analysis is similar to its earlier standard set
forth in Brooks Bros., except that the Brooks Bros. decision
explicitly set forth the standard we are to apply when dealing with
diaries containing extraneous components. In Brooks Bros., the
court examined the classification of a diary which contained many
pages "useful solely for the information presented" which did not
serve as sites for the recordation of notes and appointments. The
Brooks Bros. Court held:
"[T]he fact that the Economist Diary contained a
significant quantity of printed material did not
change its essential character ... [R]egardless
of the incidental value or utility of its
informational material, it was still primarily
and essentially a diary ... the informational
material contained in the Economist Diary merely
rendered it more useful and attractive to a particular
class of purchasers ... [W]ithout the diary portion,
it could not be sold as a diary of any kind. [T]he
holding of the court is strengthened by the fundamental
principle of customs law that an eo nomine designation
of an article without limitation includes all forms of
that article." [emphasis added]
Furthermore, we disagree with counsel's position that,
pursuant to the analysis set forth in Nestle, a diary's essence
must be imparted exclusively from its diary components to warrant
classification in subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA. Rather, we
believe it is the Brooks Bros. analysis which is applicable in this
instance: regardless of the presence of extraneous components, so
long as the article is primarily a place for the recordation of
events and appointments, it is classifiable as a diary. It is this
office's opinion that the Mead planners at issue have been
primarily designed to perform a diary function.
Lastly, we note that the decision rendered in Charles
Scribner's Sons, Inc. v. United States, 574 F. Supp. 1058; C.I.T.
168 (1983), is not precedential in the instant case in that the
article at issue in that case is significantly different than the
articles currently the subject of this request for internal advice.
At issue in Scribner's was whether an article described as the
"Engagement Calendar 1979" was a calendar or a diary for
classification purposes under the TSUSA. The article under
consideration in that case was described as a spiral-bound desk
calendar with high-quality Sierra Club photographs featured on the
left side of the opened calendar, and a table of days of the week
on the right side. The article measured approximately 9-3/8 inches
by 6-1/2 inches and the space allotted for each day of the week
measured approximately one inch by 4-13/16 inches. The article was
made of titanium-coated paper which was specifically
chosen because it was best-suited for photographic reproduction.
Plaintiff's witness in that case testified that although Charles
Scribner's Sons, Inc. had received numerous complaints that the
paper was not well-suited for writing, the plaintiff chose not to
change the paper because the primary objective was to accentuate
the photographs. Another witness for the plaintiff testified that
the desk calendar had been marketed throughout the country as a
calendar "because it was not suitable as a diary." The suitability
determination, or lack thereof, was based on the quality of paper
used (as stated, it was not appropriate paper for the receipt of
written notations) and the quantity of writing space available.
All of the factors which precluded the article in Scribner's from
classification as a diary are absent in the instant case. The type
of paper used in these articles is well-suited for writing and the
amount of space allocated for the recordation of notes, events and
appointments is presumably adequate inasmuch as it is at least as
great as that provided for in the articles held to be diaries in
both Baumgarten and Brooks Bros..
The court in Scribner's stated that as the courts in
Baumgarten and Brooks Bros. did not "distinguish between a diary
and a calendar ... they do not govern the result in the present
case." Similarly, this office is of the opinion that as the issue
in Scribner's was whether an article was a calendar or a diary, and
the issue in the present case is whether the articles are diaries
or "similar to" diaries, Scribner's is not precedential in this
instance. The courts' decisions in Baumgarten and Brooks Bros. are
pertinent to our determination because those cases focused on the
specific issue of what constitutes a diary for tariff
classification purposes. Moreover, the articles determined to be
diaries in those two cases bear a strong resemblance in both form
and function to the merchandise currently under review.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Mead planners at issue
are deemed to be "diaries" for tariff classification purposes.
II. ARE THE ARTICLES AT ISSUE "BOUND" FOR PURPOSES
OF CLASSIFICATION UNDER 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA?
The second issue before us is whether the day planners at
issue are considered "bound" for purposes of classification within
subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA. In counsel's supplementary
submission to this office, the argument is made that the Mead
planners at issue are not "bound" for purposes of classification
under subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA, inasmuch as they do not meet
the definition of a "bound book" as set forth in Kessler & Co. v.
United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 513, C.D. 3944 (1969), citing Overton
& Co. v. United States, 22 Treas. Dec. 437, T.D. 32327 (1912).
In Overton, the court defined a bound book as a "collection
of leaves of any size permanently stitched or bound together in a
cover, the binding being of the kind of work performed by the
bookbinder." Counsel submits numerous other lexicographic
definitions from both general and trade dictionaries which provide
similar definitions of "bookbinding," and thereby arrives at the
conclusion that the Mead planners at issue are not bound in the
sense contemplated by the bookbinding trade. We note that all the
submitted definitions set forth what constitutes a bound book.
The issue at hand, however, is whether diaries with metal looseleaf
binders, or spiral binders, are considered bound diaries for tariff
classification purposes. The issue is not what constitutes a bound
book, and there is no requirement that a diary be in the format of
a book.
The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
Explanatory Notes (EN) to heading 4820, page 687, which represent
the official interpretation of the HTS at the
international level, state:
"goods of this heading may be bound with materials
other than paper (e.g., leather, plastics or textile
material) and have reinforcements or fittings of metal,
plastics, etc."
It is clear that the Harmonized System Committee contemplated metal
binders as being within this heading's definition of bound
articles.
Counsel contends that as the term "bound" is found for the
first time at the eight digit level (it modifies the term diary in
subheading 4820.10.20, HTSUSA), and the EN represent the official
interpretation of the HTS only at the four and six digit level, the
EN provide no instruction as to the meaning of the word "bound."
While we concur that the EN need not be applied at the eight digit
level, we disagree that the EN are of "no value" in this instance.
The value of the EN is that they provide guidance and insight into
the intent of the Harmonized System Committee when drafting the
Nomenclature. In this case, the EN specifically set forth how
articles of heading 4820, HTSUSA, may be bound. The EN state that
articles of this heading may be bound with metal. This office
interprets this language as indicative of the drafters' intent to
include as bound any articles possessing ring binders or spiral
binders. This position is in accordance with the courts holding
in Brooks Bros., in which an article constructed with a spiral
binding was classified as a bound dairy under item 256.56, Tariff
Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA).
We further note that the manner in which items 256.56 and
256.58 were drafted under the TSUSA supports our position that the
term "bound" was intended to include ring binders and spiral
binders. Items 256.56 and 256.58 TSUSA, provide for:
Blank books, bound:
256.56 Diaries, notebooks and address books:....4%
256.58 Other: ................................Free
If this office were to adopt counsel's contention, that only books
bound in the traditional bookbinding method (i.e., with stitching
and glue) were to be deemed "bound," there would be no place in
item 256, TSUSA, for diaries bound with ring binders and spiral
binders as both the "diary" breakout and the "other" breakout are
modified by the term "bound." This situation differs from the
current construction of the HTSUSA, where subheading 4820.10.20
provides for bound diaries and 4820.10.40 is the provision where
unbound diaries would be classified.
Lastly, we note that a semantical approach to this issue is
revealing: a binder, whether a ring binder or spiral, is that which
binds pages together in a fixed order. Pages held together in this
manner are bound, and the diary is therefore deemed a bound
article.
HOLDING:
The Mead Corporation day planners, referenced style numbers
47062, 47064, 47066, 47068, 47102, 47103, 47104, 47105, 47106,
47107, 47122, 47124, 47126, 47128, 47130, 47132, 47134, 47136,
47138, 47140, 47142, 47144, 47172, 47174, 47176, 47178 and 47180,
are classifiable under subheading 4820.10.2010, HTSUSA, which
provides for, inter alia, bound diaries and address books, dutiable
at a rate of 4 percent ad valorem.
Since the classification indicated above is the same as the
classification under which the subject entries were liquidated,
you are instructed to deny the protest in full.
A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 and
provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the
protest. 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 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 this decision must
be accomplished prior to the mailing of the decision.
Sixty days from the date of this 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 to the public via the Diskette Subscription Service,
Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
cc: Port Director