CLA-2: RR:CR:TE 966810 KSH
Port Director
Port of Newark/New York
C/O Residual Liquidation and Protest Branch
1100 Raymond Blvd.
Suite 402
Newark, New Jersey 07102
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest 4601-03-102615
Dear Port Director: This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 4601-03-102615, timely filed by Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., on behalf of Camps Bay Manufacturing.
FACTS: The protest is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) classification of three entries of men’s and boy’s knit shirts under subheadings 6105.10.0030, 6105.20.2010 and 6105.10.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Protestant entered the merchandise subject to this protest in subheading 9819.11.12, HTSUSA. CBP issued a notice of our intention to rate advance the three entries on April 22, 2003. The merchandise was liquidated under the appropriate subheadings for Heading 6105, HTSUSA, on June 6, 2003. Protestant filed a protest with an application for further review on September 3, 2003, challenging the decision of the Port Director not to accord the merchandise the benefits of the AGOA and declining to liquidate the merchandise in subheading 9819.11.12, HTSUSA. The importer’s AFR request was approved. The protest was timely filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514 (c)(3) and 19 C.F.R. 174.12 (e)(1).
ISSUE: Does AFR 4601-03-102615 satisfy the criteria for further review under 19 CFR §§174.24 and 174.25?
LAW AND ANALYSIS: Section 174.24 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR §174.24) lists the criteria for granting an AFR. It states that an AFR will be granted when the decision against which the protest was filed:
Is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee, or with a decision made at any port with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise;
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;
Involves matters previously ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts but facts are alleged or legal arguments presented which were not considered at the time of the original ruling; or
Is alleged to involve questions which the Headquarters Office, United States Customs Service, refused to consider in the form of a request for internal advice pursuant to §177.11(b)(5) of this chapter.
Additionally, Section 174.25(b)(3) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR §174.25(b)(3)) provides, in pertinent part, that an application for further review shall contain a statement of any facts or additional legal arguments, not part of the record, upon which the protesting party relies, including the criterion set forth in §174.24 which justifies further review.
Under Section III of the instant Protest ("Detailed Reasons for Protest and/or Further Review"), protestant has set forth detailed legal arguments upon which the protest is filed. However, protestant has not provided any criterion set forth in 19 CFR 174.24 which would justify further review. See 19 CFR 174.25(b)(3).
Moreover, the classification of substantially similar merchandise was addressed in HQ 966634, dated September 10, 2003 and HQ 966693, dated November 26, 2003. In HQ 966634 and HQ 966693, it was determined that minor trimming and cutting subsequent to importation into a lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African country does not preclude a finding that collars and cuffs are knit components where their essential character at the time of importation is that of a collar or cuff.
Accordingly, we find that the protestant fails to meet the criteria of 19 CFR §174.24 and the justification requirements of 19 CFR §174.25(b)(3), and that further review of the AFR is not warranted.
HOLDING:
Protest number 4601-03-102615 does not meet the criteria for further review under 19 CFR §174.24 and 19 CFR §174.25. Accordingly, the AFR should not have been granted. We are returning the protest file to your office for appropriate action.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial Rulings Division