DRA-2 DRA-5
OT:RR:CTF:ER H004403 ECD
Terry L. Estell, Port Director
ATTN: Christina D. Brooks, Drawback Specialist
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
2350 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E. #1000 Houston, Texas 77032-3100
RE: Kapp Sales & Service: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 5301-05-100376; 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c), (r) and (v); 19 C.F.R. § 191.42
Dear Ms. Brooks:
On December 13, 2006, this office received your correspondence concerning Protest No. 5301-05-100376 (the “Protest”). Your office properly granted the application for further review submitted by Kapp Sales & Service (“Kapp Sales” or “protestant”); moreover, for the reasons outlined in this letter, the Protest should be granted.
Background:
The Protest involves a drawback claim. On August 15, 2000, Kapp Sales & Service imported into the United States a type KX-1 gear grinding machine (the “KX-1 machine”), classified under HTSUS No. 8461.40.5070. An import invoice, “actually invoiced already with our Commercial Invoice No. 62878 dd. June 30, 2000,” states that the item “packed in crate No.1 and 2” is the property of Kapp Sales in Boulder, Colorado, and to be delivered to Kapp Sales “after completion of the exhibition IMTS 2000.” The “IMTS 2000” was the International Manufacturing Technology Show held from September 6-13, 2000, in Chicago, Illinois. The import invoice lists one KX-1 machine with a serial number of 083.0698, including one control cabinet with “Machine Control SINUMERIK 840 D,” one modem connection for remote diagnosis, one tailstock, one
alignment sensor, and one mechanical and electrical interface “for later adaptation of automatic loading/unloading.” There is also a commercial invoice which lists one coolant system, one hydraulic expansion workholding device for EATON test parts, a coolant nozzle, paper filter inserts, prefiltering cassette and micron air filter, and lubrication oil for automatic lubrication system.
According to the service reports provided from Kapp Sales, upon arrival in Boulder, Colorado, the KX-1 machine did not operate properly. From October 13, 2000, through October 15, 2000, a technician at Kapp Sales in Boulder, Colorado, spent four hours examining the KX-1 machine, and concluded, according to the work report, as translated by Kapp Sales:
FREIGHT DAMAGE: Inspected show machine at site and, as discussed with KAPP the damage {sic} is to be reapired {sic} locally. At thsi thime mchine {sic} is not ready for operation and disassembled.
The first line reads, “Transportschaden zur IMTS 2000,” which translates as “transport damage to IMTS 2000,” or that the damage occurred during the shipment from Germany to the trade show in the United States. According to additional Kapp Sales service reports, one service engineer spent fifty-four work hours on the KX-1 machine from October 16 through October 20, 2000; and two service engineers spent at least sixty-five work hours on the KX-1 machine from November 20, 2000 through November 25, 2000. According to the service report, as translated by Kapp Sales:
X-Axis guide way damaged. C-Axis still old version should be….{sic} X-Axis does not yet have V-Rail as a support/attachment rail
Dismounted grinding slide, re-scraped guides a the cross slide support, replaced damaged slide coating (approximately {sic} 30 mm and fitted v-rails Per agreement with Mr. Jim Buschy installed C-Axus {sic} up to +/- 0.02 mm to speed up assembly (since this C-Axis is to be replaced next year and prior to that no grinding test are scheduled).
On December 18, 2000, Kapp Technologies provided a service report, which stated, according to the translation from Kapp Sales:
Tasks carried out:
Removed machine covers, dismounted machine doors
Dismounted Z-, C and X-Axis.
Removed chamfering on parts.
Mounted Y-Axis.
Re-scraped upper X-Axis guides.
Replace 30 mm Teflon coating on support column
Scraped support column
Installed X- and Z-Axis drive
Adjusted support rail to X-Axis (scraped).
For the purpose of speeding up installation of the C-Axis was set at +/- 02 mm, in agreement with Mr. Jim Buschy. (Next year January/February it is planned to exchange the C-Axis in Boulder).
Remounted machine covers and machine doors.
General Notes:
X-Axis:
Support rail actually is a fitting rail and not a V-rail!
The Y-Axis metal cover sheet could not be found.
Machine is currently used for demos only and not for grinding.
A schedule for rebuild of C-Axis is to be provided to KAPP TECHNOLOGIES
(Ute Papenbrock, Service Coordinator)
A software update is highly recommended
Operating Program (Text in English)
Sub Programs (Speed in “mm”, not in “inch”).
Second Machine start-up should be carried out in Boulder as well.
Established documentation for Axis-optimization A- and C-Axis
All the work was done at Kapp Sales in Boulder, Colorado. Kapp Sales provided an email, indicating that Juergen Masching from Kapp Technologies, the producer of the KX-1 Machine, had notified Kapp Sales that it would send “a new C and A axis spindle for our KX1 machine.” Email from J. Buschy to U. Papenbrock dated April 17, 2002. Kapp Sales also provided an “Internal Document” written by Mr. Masching, which listed the KX-1 and its serial number, was addressed to Kapp Sales, and stated, according to Kapp Sales’ translation:
June 13, 2002
Supplement 2 = cancellation of this order because the machine is sent back to Coburg. The delivered parts (position 0020 to 0031) are warehoused in the consignment Stock at KSS (to be used as spare parts for Eaton, Shenandoah).
No Calculation!
Kapp Sales provided a packing list, dated July 29, 2002, listing the KX-1 machine with the same serial number as provided in the other documents, a total of three crates, with a ship-to address in Coburg, Germany. Kapp Sales also provided a signed bill of lading, described as “3 crates gear center and parts type KX 1” for a shipment to Germany, stamped “on board” August 10, 2002. A Notice of Intent, Customs Form 7553, was signed on July 28, 2002 for “(1) KAPP GEAR CENTER TYPE KX-1 Serial No. 0830698.” The Drawback Entry No. is listed as AV7-xxxxx818, the intended export date is August 5, 2002, and, in box 18, “Drawback To Be Filed As” Kapp Sales checked the boxes for “Unused Merchandise Drawback” and “J2”. U.S. Customs Service (“legacy Customs”) waived examination on July 29, 2002.
On July 25, 2003, Kapp Sales filed Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818, and claimed a refund on unused merchandise. The claim was denied, and on October 10, 2003, Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818 was liquidated without any drawback refund. Kapp Sales did not file a protest, but filed a new claim, Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789, on August 9, 2005. In a letter accompanying the drawback claim, the representative for Kapp Sales wrote, “Claims for drawback on either the basis of Rejected Merchandise and/or Unused Merchandise are correct.” In the latter claim, it sought a refund for non-conforming or defective merchandise, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c). In a letter to Kapp Sales, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) stated that the second claim was denied, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(v), because the import and export were previously designated in AV7-xxxxx818. See Letter from Drawback Specialist C. Brooks to L. Deliganis of August 24, 2005. On September 9, 2005, the entry was liquidated without any refund.
On November 9, 2005, Kapp Sales filed its Protest, and requested further review, citing 19 C.F.R. § 174.26(b)(1)(i) and stating, “The subject matter includes standards open to subjective interpretation and lack of uniformity of treatment.” Kapp Sales protested the denial of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789, and stated,
The merchandise is still eligible for Drawback. The unit was exported in the same condition as imported because it never functioned correctly and did not perform according to specifications. Claims for Drawback on either the basis of Rejected Merchandise or Unused (Same Condition) Merchandise would be correctly granted. Thus entry AV7-xxxxx789 is timely and correct and should have been allowed.
On December 13, 2006, CBP Headquarters received the protests for further review.
In response to questions from CBP, Kapp Sales provided a declaration from James Buschy, Vice President and General Manager, dated February 20, 2009. In the declaration, Mr. Buschy stated:
The discrepancy between Import Invoice and Export Invoice is in the amount of detail given about the machine. The invoices were prepared by two different people in two different countries speaking two different languages. The invoices both refer to Machine Type KX-1 with Serial Number 083.0698. However, the lists of included features differ. The chart below matches the two invoices respective lists and attempts to explain the discrepancies between the two descriptions of the machine.
Import Invoice Heading
Export Invoice Heading
Control Cabinet
Electrical Cabinet
Modem Connection for Remote Diagnosis
In Electrical Cabinet
Tailstock
Tailstock Support
Alignment Sensors
Standard Equipment, Features & Functions
Mechanical and Electrical Interface for later adaptation of loading/unloading system hydraulic unit
Electrical Cabinet
Standard Equipment, Features & Functions
Transformer
Standard Equipment, Features & Functions
Coolant System
Standard Equipment, Features & Functions
Oil Mist Collector
Standard Equipment, Features & Functions
Machine Accessories
See Declaration of James Buschy, February 20, 2009.
Issues:
Whether Kapp Sales is barred from making a subsequent drawback claim, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(v), when its prior claim on the same merchandise was liquidated without any drawback refund.
Whether the waiver of examination on Customs Form 7553, on which Kapp Sales claimed the drawback to be filed would be unused merchandise drawback, pursuant to 1313(j)(2), constitutes a waiver for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 191.42(e); and whether Kapp Sales has established it is eligible for drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c).
Whether an unused merchandise drawback refund may be granted, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1), (j)(3) and (r)(2), when the merchandise at issue is attempted to be repaired and then returned to the seller.
Whether Kapp Sales failed to receive notice of the denial of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818 and was precluded from protesting the liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818.
Law and Analysis:
As an initial matter, we note that the Protest is timely, because it was filed within 90 days of the liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(2000). The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 amended 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) to allow importers to file protests 180 days from notice of liquidation or reliquidation; however, the amendment to the protest provision applied to merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after December 18, 2004. See Pub. L. 108-429, 118 Stat. 2434 (Dec. 4, 2004). In this case, the merchandise entered on August 15, 2000, thus the 90-day protest period applies, even though Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789 was filed on November 9, 2005.
In general, for CBP to grant an application for further review (“AFR”), a protestant should state more than the criteria for further review or the process for a port director to grant an application for further review. See 19 C.F.R. § 174.24 and 174.26. In its AFR, Kapp Sales repeated 19 C.F.R. § 174.26(b)(1)(i), and failed to provide further facts or additional legal arguments to explain why further review was justified, pursuant to section 174.25 of CBP Regulations. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 174.24(a)-(d) and 174.25(b)(3). Nevertheless, in this instance, the Protest and the documents supporting the Protest on their face show that the denial would be inconsistent with prior legacy Customs (now CBP) rulings, and that there is an issue that CBP has not yet ruled upon. Therefore, the port properly granted the application for further review, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a) and (b).
1. Subsequent Drawback Claims May Be Filed If a Prior Claim Was Liquidated without Refund and If They Are Otherwise Timely
Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789 is neither time-barred nor barred by Kapp Sales’ unsuccessful prior drawback claim. According to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1), a drawback entry and all documents necessary to complete a drawback claim must be filed within three years of the date of exportation or destruction of the merchandise against which the refund is claimed. The bill of lading states that the KX-1 machine was exported on August 10, 2002. Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789 was filed on August 9, 2005, which is just one day shy of the three year deadline. Therefore, the claim was timely.
Furthermore, CBP has interpreted the statute as allowing an additional claim for drawback on the same exported merchandise that was the basis of a prior claim, if the prior claim was liquidated without any refund. 19 U.S.C. § 1313(v) states that merchandise “exported or destroyed to satisfy any claim for drawback shall not be the
basis of any other claim for drawback.” The agency has interpreted this provision to mean that “only one claim per exportation could be ‘approved’ or paid.” See HQ Ruling 227627 (July 20, 1999). In the Ruling, legacy Customs concluded,
The liquidation of a drawback claim with no drawback allowed does not preclude a subsequent drawback claim in which the basis of drawback is the same exported merchandise as for the previously liquidated drawback claim for which no drawback was allowed.
Id. The situation is identical here: no drawback was allowed for Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818, which involved the same KX-1 machine as in the Protested claim, and thus Kapp Sales could file a subsequent drawback claim for the same KX-1 machine. Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789 is not time-barred nor barred by a prior claim.
2. Although the Notice of Intent Claimed Drawback Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j), the Amendment to the Statute Allows Kapp Sales to Claim Drawback Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2005)
Because Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789 was timely filed, the claim pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) must be considered. The statutory provision for rejected merchandise drawback states:
(c) Merchandise not conforming to sample or specifications (1) Conditions for drawback
Upon the exportation or destruction under the supervision of the Customs Service of articles or merchandise-- (A) upon which the duties have been paid, (B) which has been entered or withdrawn for consumption, (C) which is—
(i) not conforming to sample or specifications, shipped without the consent of the consignee, or determined to be defective as of the time of importation, or (ii) ultimately sold at retail by the importer, or the person who received the merchandise from the importer under a certificate of delivery, and for any reason returned to and accepted by the importer, or the person who received the merchandise from the importer under a certificate of delivery, and
(D) which, within 3 years after the date of importation or withdrawal, as applicable, has been exported or destroyed under the supervision of the Customs Service,
The full amount of the duties paid upon such merchandise, less 1 percent, shall be refunded as drawback.
Designation of import entries
For purposes of paragraph (1)(C)(ii), drawback may be claimed by designating an entry of merchandise that was imported within 1 year before the date of exportation or destruction of the merchandise described in paragraph (1)(A) and (B) under the supervision of the Customs Service. The merchandise designated for drawback must be identified in the import documentation with the same eight-digit classification number and specific product identifier (such as part number, SKU, or product code) as the returned merchandise.
When drawback certificates not required
For purposes of this subsection, drawback certificates are not required if the drawback claimant and the importer are the same party, or if the drawback claimant is a drawback successor to the importer as defined in subsection (s)(3) of this section.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2005). The revised statutory provision applies to “any drawback entry filed on and after” December 3, 2004. See Pub. L. No. 108-429, § 1563(g)(1)(A) (December 3, 2004), 118 Stat. 2587. AV7-xxxxx789 was filed on August 9, 2005; therefore, the amended statute applies to its drawback claim.
The first two elements that Kapp Sales must establish are whether the KX-1 machine was entered for consumption, and whether duties were paid on it. See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(1)(A) and (B). Kapp Sales provided its entry documentation, and a review of CBP’s Automated Commercial System (“ACS”) shows that Kapp Sales did pay the duties owed on the KX-1 machine.
Next Kapp Sales must establish that the KX-1 machine was “determined to be defective as of the time of importation.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(1)(C)(i); 19 C.F.R. § 191.42(b). To do so, the “claimant must provide evidence that the importer and foreign supplier agreed that the imported merchandise was defective at the time of importation.” See HQ 22854 (April 5, 2000). Kapp Sales provided a service report that indicated “Transportschaden zur IMTS 2000,” meaning “transport damage to IMTS 2000,” or that the damage occurred during the shipment from Germany to the United States, and not from Chicago, Illinois to Boulder, Colorado. From October through December 2000, Kapp Technologies’ technicians attempted to repair the KX-1 machine, and spent over 100 hours working on the KX-1 machine at Kapp Sales’ facility in Boulder, Colorado. There is a notation in late 2000 that “since this C-Axis is to be replaced next year and prior to that no grinding test are {sic} scheduled”; from this note it may be inferred that the C-Axis was a crucial enough part to prevent use of the KX-1 machine for its gear grinding purposes. However, not until April 2002 did Kapp Technologies indicate it would send a C-Axis at no charge to Kapp Sales. In June 2002, Kapp Technologies sent an email to Kapp Sales that it would not be sending the C-Axis not because the machine was working but “because the machine is sent {sic} back to Coburg {Germany}”. These documents are contemporaneous to the importation, were written well before any
drawback claim had been made, and were executed in the ordinary course of business; therefore, they carry significant weight. Because Kapp Technologies’ own technicians worked on the KX-1 machine and wrote that the damage occurred on the way to IMTS 2000, the evidence indicates that both the importer, Kapp Sales, and the foreign supplier, Kapp Technologies, agreed that the KX-1 machine was defective at the time of importation. Therefore, the documents demonstrate that the KX-1 machine was defective at the time of importation.
Finally, Kapp Sales must establish that within three years after the date of importation the KX-1 machine was exported or destroyed under CBP supervision. See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(1)(D). Kapp Sales provided a packing list, dated July 29, 2002, listing the KX-1 machine with the same serial number as provided in the other documents, a total of three crates, with a ship-to address in Coburg, Germany. Kapp Sales also provided a signed bill of lading, described as “3 crates gear center and parts type KX 1” for a shipment to Germany, stamped “on board” August 10, 2002. A Notice of Intent, Customs Form 7553, was signed on July 28, 2002 for “(1) KAPP GEAR CENTER TYPE KX-1 Serial No. 0830698.” The declaration of Mr. Buschy, who was mentioned in the documents and participated in the contemporaneous email exchanges Kapp Sales provided, indicated that the list of parts imported and the list of parts exported showed that the same machine and its components were exported as had been originally imported, and that the difference was because of the differences in English and German terminology.
Although 19 C.F.R. § 191.42(a) states that a claimant must return merchandise to CBP custody, Kapp Sales was not required to do so. The amended statutory provision eliminated the requirements that importers return the goods to CBP custody, and that importers, who are also drawback claimants, provide a drawback certificate. As the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate explained:
{I}t removes the antiquated requirement for merchandise to be returned to the custody of U.S. Customs, and replaces it with the requirement for exportation or destruction under the supervision of U.S. Customs, a change that would bring Section 313(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. section 1313(c)) more in line with the requirements of other subsections.
See S. Rep. 108-28, 2003 WL 1441307 at 192. Therefore, for purposes of rejected merchandise drawback, the claimant is no longer required to return the merchandise to CBP custody.
Congress changed the provision to bring specifically 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) “more in line with the requirements of other subsections.” Because the intent of the change was to make the rejected merchandise drawback provision correspond more to other drawback provisions, waiver for purposes of unused merchandise drawback, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j), may constitute waiver for purposes of nonconforming merchandise drawback, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c). In Kapp Sales’ Notice of Intent, Customs Form 7553, Kapp Sales checked the boxes for “Unused Merchandise Drawback” and “J2”. Legacy Customs waived examination on July 29, 2002. Because both the provision for unused merchandise drawback in 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) and 1313(j) require that merchandise be exported or destroyed under CBP supervision, if CBP waives examination on Customs Form 7533 for purposes of a 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j) claim, then CBP has also waived examination for purposes of a 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) claim. However, only the waiver of examination on Customs Form 7553 is at issue here; this Ruling does not address whether CBP’s regulatory procedures for applying either for a one-time waiver after failing to file a notice of intent to export, or for waiver of prior notice of intent to export, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 191.36 and 191.91, may be extended to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) claims. Therefore, Kapp Sales has provided sufficient documentation to support its 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) drawback claim, and its claim should be granted.
3. It is Unnecessary to Review Kapp Sales’ Claims Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1).
This ruling does not revisit Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818; however, 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(2), states that a drawback claim filed pursuant to any subsection of 19 U.S.C. § 1313 is deemed filed pursuant to any other subsection, if it is determined that drawback is not allowable under the claim as originally filed, but would be allowable under the other subsection. See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(2). The provision allows a protestant to raise the alternative drawback subsections either prior to liquidation or by protest. See Drawback, 63 Fed. Reg. 10970, 10979 (March 5, 1998). Furthermore, a claim for rejected merchandise drawback may also be the subject of a direct identification drawback claim, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1). See 19 C.F.R. § 191.44. In its Protest, Kapp Sales did argue for drawback claims on the bases of both unused (same condition) merchandise and rejected merchandise. However, because this ruling determines that Kapp Sales has established its entitlement to drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c), it is not necessary to review whether Kapp Sales is entitled to drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1).
4. Kapp Sales Received Notice That CBP Liquidated Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818, and Could Have Filed A Protest
Kapp Sales alleged that after it filed the first drawback entry, Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818, the “drawback entry was denied but the claimant did not receive notice and was thereby precluded from protesting that decision.” Kapp Sales provided no documentation to support this allegation. A search of ACS indicates that the Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818 was liquidated on October 10, 2003. CBP Regulations state that when CBP liquidates a formal entry, CBP provides notice of liquidation by posting at the customhouse a bulletin notice of liquidation, which is Customs Form 4333. See 19 C.F.R. § 159.9(a) and (b). The bulletin notice of liquidation is dated with the date it was posted, and the posting constitutes legal evidence of liquidation. See 19 C.F.R. §
159.9(c)(1). The obligation to examine the bulletin notices to determine whether merchandise has been liquidated, and to file protests timely, rests upon the importer. See Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 1463, 1467 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989)(citations omitted). Kapp Sales had ninety days from the date CBP posted the bulletin notice of liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818 to file its protest. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A)(2003) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(e)(1). Kapp Sales never protested the liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818.
There is no evidence that Kapp Sales was precluded from protesting the liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818. The courts have held that because CBP officials are presumed to perform their lawful duties, unless a claimant provides evidence to the contrary, “the presumption that notice was posted is sufficient to negate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” See Star Sales & Distributing Corp. v. United States, 663 F. Supp. 1127. 1129 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986). In this case, because of the presumption of regularity in CBP actions, and because Kapp Sales has failed to provide any evidence to rebut the presumption, CBP is presumed to have posted the bulletin notice of liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818. It is also presumed that the date of liquidation of the drawback entry in ACS is the date CBP posted the bulletin notice of liquidation. CBP posted the bulletin notice of liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818; therefore, Kapp Sales received notice of liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818, and was never precluded from protesting the liquidation of Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818.
Conclusion:
Because no drawback was allowed for Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx818, and Drawback Entry No. AV7-xxxxx789 was filed within three years of exportation, Kapp Sales could file a second drawback claim for the same KX-1 machine. Drawback is allowable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c), because Kapp Sales entered and paid duties on the KX-1 machine, established that the KX-1 machine was defective as of the time of importation, and that within three years of importation, it exported the KX-1 machine. The amended statute no longer requires that the KX-1 machine have been returned to CBP custody; therefore, when legacy Customs waived examination on Customs Form 7533 for purposes of a 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j) claim, then legacy Customs also waived examination for purposes of a 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) claim.
You are directed to grant the Protest. This decision will result in the refund of duties, and reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision, in accordance with Section IV of the Customs Protest/ Petition Processing Handbook (CIS HB, January 2002, pp. 18 and 21). You are to mail this decision, together with CBP Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.
No later than 60 days from the date of this letter, Regulations and Rulings of the Office of International Trade will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and by other means of public distribution.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division