CLA-2: OT: RR: TCM: H241622 ERB
Port Director, Port of Buffalo
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
726 Exchange Street, Suite 400
Buffalo, New York 14210
Attn: Kristine Dodge, Import Specialist
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 0901-12-100289; plastic jewelry boxes wholly covered in plastic-coated paper
Dear Port Director:
The following is our decision regarding the Application for Further Review (AFR) of Protest No. 0901-12-100289, timely filed by counsel on October 4, 2012, on behalf of Gunther Mele Ltd. (Gunther Mele or protestant). The AFR concerns the tariff classification of plastic jewelry boxes, wholly covered in plastic-coated paper, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). For this ruling U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken into consideration additional information provided at its meeting with Gunther Mele and counsel on October 29, 2014, as well as follow up information provided via email on November 19, 2014 (attachments dated November 14, 2014), and various samples sent to this office.
FACTS:
The subject merchandise is plastic jewelry presentation boxes that are wholly covered with paper. The paper has a plastic sheeting on it. There are five models at issue here named Horizon, Vantage, Eclipse, Galleria Gold, and Roma. They are imported into the U.S. empty and are not sold directly to consumers - rather, they are sold to retailers who package their wares inside these boxes for customers to transport the jewelry from the point of purchase. They are also referred to as jewelry presentation cases.
In the ordinary course of business, retailers contact Gunther Mele and first choose a box model. The model names refer to unique characteristics of the boxes, such as rounded corners or different closures types. The model name of the box does not refer to the outer covering of the box, its color, or whether or not the covering is embossed or personalized. After the retailer choses a box model, the retailer chooses an outer covering from the myriad samples available in catalogs Gunther Mele has from its suppliers. Some of these outer covering options are plastic-coated paper, but others are non-plasticized paper, wholly plastic (leatherette), or textile. The retailer may choose to further personalize the items by embossing the covering with a design, logo, or the retailer’s name. After Gunther Mele has secured a retailer’s order (again, box model, outer covering, and whether or not it is personalized), Gunther Mele contracts with suppliers in China that complete the order. The order is shipped to Canada where Gunther Mele finalizes any personalization, including packaging the jewelry boxes with coordinating tissue paper, bags, or other accoutrements. The entire personalized set is then imported into the U.S. directly to the retailer.
This AFR concerns 109 entries of the subject merchandise made between August 12, 2010 and April 26, 2012 at the Port of Buffalo-Niagara Falls. Gunther Mele entered all of the subject merchandise under subheading 4202.99.10, HTSUS, which provides for containers or cases, wholly or mainly covered in paper, of plastics. CBP liquidated all of the goods under subheading 4202.92.90, HTSUS, which provides for containers and cases, wholly or mainly covered with paper, with an outer surface of plastic sheeting, other.
On March 21, 2011, CBP Laboratory Report NY201100334 was issued regarding the Horizon model (36621003). The results of that laboratory report are as follows:
The sample, the covering material for a jewelry box, is paper coated with an acrylic type plastic.
On March 21, 2011, CBP Laboratory Report NY201100339 was issued regarding the Vantage model (36222366). The results of that laboratory report are as follows:
The sample, the covering material for a jewelry box, is paper coated with an acrylic type plastic.
On March 21, 2011, CBP Laboratory Report NY201100338 was issued regarding the Eclipse model (36822423). The results of that laboratory report are as follows:
The sample, the covering material for a jewelry box, is paper coated with an acrylic type plastic.
On March 21, 2011, CBP Laboratory Report NY201100341 was issued regarding the Roma model (36483153). The results of that laboratory report are as follows:
The sample, the covering material for a jewelry box, is paper coated with an acrylic type plastic.
On February 17, 2012, CBP Laboratory Report CH20120027 was issued regarding the Galleria Gold model (36621073). The results are as follows:
The sample consists of a yellow/gold-colored jewelry box. The box is constructed of a plastic base. It is covered in paper whose outermost surface has a polyacrylate plastic film. It is not covered in clay material.
Consequently, on May 19, 2011, CBP issued the first in a series of Notice of Actions (CF 29s) to Gunther Mele, informing it of the laboratory’s results regarding the composition of the outer covering of the sample boxes as paper coated with an acrylic-type plastic, and reclassifying the merchandise in subheading 4202.92.9060 with a duty rate of 17.6% ad valorem. It further stated that future Gunther Mele shipments should be entered accordingly.
On June 24, 2011, Gunther Mele filed an initial prior disclosure. On September 16, 2011, Gunther Mele provided additional information as regards the classification issue and argued that CBP acted in contravention of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2), and Section 177.12, CBP regulations, (19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c) et seq.), when it reclassified the jewelry boxes from subheading 4202.99.10, HTSUS to subheading 4202.92.90, HTSUS, and further, the company was entitled to “treatment”.
ISSUES:
Whether the subject merchandise is classified under subheading 4202.92.90, HTSUS, as a jewelry box with an outer covering of plastic sheeting, or in 4202.99.10, HTSUS, as a jewelry box mainly covered with paper.
Whether under the circumstances of this case the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2) and 19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c) were triggered so that protestant is entitled to liquidation of the subject merchandise under subheading 4202.99.10, HTSUS.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Initially, we note that the matter is protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2) as a decision regarding the rate and amount of duties chargeable. The protest was timely filed, within 180 days of liquidation for entries made on or after December 18, 2004. (Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-429, § 2103(2)(B)(ii), (iii)(codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(2006)).
Further Review of Protest No. 0901-12-100289 is properly accorded to Gunther Mele pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a), as it argues that CBP’s decision is inconsistent with rulings of the Commissioner of Customs indicating that a treatment cannot be revoked without following the notice and comment procedures of 19 USC § 1625(c). Further, pursuant to § 174.24(b) this issue involves questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by Customs. Specifically, Gunther Mele alleges that such questions concern the evidence it is presenting as it related to its treatment claim under § 177.12, CBP regulations, (19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c)), regarding treatment previously accorded to substantially identical transactions.
Classification
Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs may then be applied.
The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:
4202 Trunks, suit-cases, vanity-cases, executive-cases, brief-cases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similar containers; travelling-bags, insulated food or beverage bags, toiled bags, rucksacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder boxes, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper:
Other:
4202.92 With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials:
4202.92.90 Other
4202.99 Of materials (other than leather, composition leather, sheeting of plastics, textile materials, vulcanized fiber or paperboard) wholly or mainly covered with paper:
4202.99.10 Of plastics
Because the instant classification analysis occurs beyond the four-digit heading level, GRI 6 is implicated. GRI 6 states:
For legal purposes, the legal classification of goods in the subheading of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes, and mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section, chapter and subchapter notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires.
The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (ENs) constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized System. While not legally binding nor dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the Harmonized System and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127 (Aug. 23, 1989).
The EN 42.02 states the following, in relevant part:
Articles covered by the second part of the heading must, however, be only of the materials specified therein or must be wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper…
The instant jewelry boxes are fully and uniformly covered with coated paper. Thus, at the four digit, or heading level, the box is considered to be “wholly or mainly covered” with paper. The subject merchandise meets the criteria in the heading which are repeated in the ENs for classification within heading 4202, HTSUS. At the six-digit level, the majority of goods under heading 4202, HTSUS, are classified by the material that comprises the “outer surface” of the good. CBP addressed this issue in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 963618, August 2, 2002 (citing HQ 087760, October 31, 1991), wherein CBP explained:
At the four-digit level, heading 4202, HTSUSA, requires that a good be of or “wholly or mainly covered with” a special material. However, at the six-digit level, the nomenclature classifies goods by the material which comprises the “outer surface.” In classifying goods such as these we must distinguish between the requirements of the four and six-digit headings, since they dictate different criteria for classifying goods. This distinction was also discussed in (HQ) 954021 [dated November 1, 1993], wherein Customs, noting HQ 087760 [dated October 31, 1991], stated: “Evident in the above are two important distinctions: (1) a covering vs. an outer surface, and (2) classification at the four-digit (or heading) level vs. classification at the six-digit (or subheading level).”
The “outer surface” is that which is both visible and tactile. See HQ 965563, dated September 24, 2002, citing Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984), at 1178 and 1182, “Tactile”: 1. Perceptible to the touch: TANGIBLE. “Tangible”: 1a. Discernible by the touch or capable of being touched. CBP also stated in HQ 965563, “[w]hen applying the definition of “visible and tactile” to goods of heading 4202, HTSUSA, Customs has consistently classified the goods according to the outer-most substance of the composite material at issue.”
In this instance, the material that comprises the outer surface is a composite material: a base of paper that is coated with acrylic plastic sheeting. This was confirmed by CBP’s laboratory in the aforementioned reports. In HQ H129655, dated April 8, 2013 CBP addressed boxes substantially similar to the instant merchandise. In modifying HQ 953610, dated April 30, 1993, (classifying jewelry presentation boxes covered in plastic-coated paper), CBP cited Sarne Handbags Corp. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 2000 CIT 51 (2000), wherein the court, applying Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 42, HTSUS, stated in relevant part:
For the purposes of classifying articles under subheadings 4202.12, 4202.22, 4202.32, and 4202.92, articles of textile fabric impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics (whether compact or cellular) shall be regarded as having an outer surface of the textile material or of plastic sheeting, depending on whether and the extent to which the textile constituent or the plastic constituent makes up the exterior surface of that article.
Thus, the note explicitly provides the mechanism for making an “outer surface” determination where a textile is impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastic. The note expresses the concept of “outer surface” by use of the term “exterior surface.” The subject boxes do not have a textile component, but nonetheless, the note is useful in understanding the term “outer surface” when applied to other composite materials. Customs has also repeatedly relied upon this note as guidance when classifying other articles in heading 4202, HTSUS that are composed of composite materials. Applying this framework in the instant context is thus consistent with the Court of International Trade’s analysis in Sarne Handbags Corp. v. United States, supra, wherein the Court found that a handbag made of plastic coated textile was classified as an article having an outer surface of sheeting of plastic.
Gunther Mele argued in its meeting with this office, as well as in its follow up communications with this office, that the determination of the “outer surface” should be limited to that which is “visible and tactile” to the naked eye without resort to laboratory testing. Specifically, Gunther Mele states: “while the coating may in fact constitute the outer surface of many of the paper coverings Gunther Mele employs for its jewelry boxes, it does not necessarily constitute the outer surface for purposes of tariff classification because it is not visible and tactile.” [Emphasis in original] We disagree. There is no logical reading of the aforementioned HQ rulings, nor any court case, that limits CBP to only a visual inspection to determine the tariff classification of goods entering the United States. CBP has statutory authority to inspect all merchandise entering the United States, and this includes at its discretion, laboratory testing. See 19 U.S.C. §1499 – Examination of Merchandise. Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that the methods of weighing, measuring, and testing merchandise used by customs officers and the results obtained are presumed to be correct.” Aluminum Company of America v. United States, 60 C.C.P.A. 148, 151, 477 F.3d 1396, 1398 (1973) (collecting cases). And recently, in HQ H187175, dated May 14, 2014, CBP stated, “absent a conclusive showing that the testing method used by the CBP laboratory is in error, or that the CBP’s laboratory results are erroneous, there is a presumption that the results are correct.” See also HQ 965563, where CBP relied on laboratory analysis of the ECOREL™ Plus which covered the molded plastic box at issue there, and determined that it was entirely covered with plastic stating: “The sample is a box whose outer surface contains a plastic or plastics component that is exposed, entirely covers the paper component, and is relatively thin in comparison to its breadth.”
Thus, applying the principles set forth in the analysis in the Sarne case, as well as CBP’s holding in HQ H129655 to the instant facts, where we consider a plastic jewelry box that is covered with paper having a thin coating of plastic sheeting fully covering it, we conclude that the subject merchandise is provided for in subheading 4202.92, HTSUS. As the outer covering of the boxes is sheeting of plastic, it cannot be described as a jewelry box with an outer covering of other than sheetings of plastic, in subheading 4202.99, HTSUS.
Treatment Claim
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c), before issuing an interpretive ruling or decision that would have the effect of modifying the treatment previously accorded by CBP to substantially identical transactions, CBP publishes notice of the proposed ruling or decision in the Customs Bulletin. Thereafter, CBP grants interested parties an opportunity to submit, during not less than the 30-day period after the date of publication, comments on the correctness of the proposed ruling or decision. After consideration of any comments received, CBP publishes a final ruling or decision in the Customs Bulletin. The final ruling becomes effective 60 days after the date of its publication. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c). See also HQ H076723, dated November 24, 2010 (Wherein CBP held that where a claim of treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2) is substantiated, then a Protestant is entitled to liquidation of entries under the classification that it received the treatment by CBP).
Section 177.12(c)(iv), CBP regulations, (19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c)) provides that, “[t]he evidentiary burden as regards the existence of the previous treatment is on the person claiming the treatment.” It continues:
The evidence of previous treatment by Customs must include a list of all materially identical transactions by entry number (or other Customs assigned number), the quantity and value of merchandise covered by each transaction (where applicable), the ports of entry, the dates of final action by Customs, and, if known, the name and location of the customs officer who made the determination on which the claimed treatment is based. In addition, in cases in which an entry is liquidated without any Customs review (for example, the entry is liquidated automatically as entered), the person claiming a previous treatment must be prepared to submit to Customs written or other appropriate evidence of the earlier actual determination of a Customs officer that the person relied on in preparing the entry and that is consistent with the liquidation of the entry.
Gunther Mele argues that CBP’s CF 29 issued May 19, 2011 reclassifying its goods was issued in contravention of the above statute and regulations. Section 1625(c) does not define the term “interpretive ruling or decision.” However, § 1625(a) does with reference to the term “interpretive ruling,” provide to “include[e] any ruling, internal advice memorandum,” or “protest review decision[s]” as the types of additional determinations that trigger the statute’s publication requirements. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in analyzing the plain language of the statute concluded that the terms of § 1625(c) should read consistently with the terms of § 1625(a). See California Indus. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 436 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(citing Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also 19 C.F.R. § 177.12(a). CBP regulations further provide that a “ruling” is a written statement that interprets and applies the provisions of the Customs’ laws to a specific set of facts. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(d)(1). Finally, an “internal advice memorandum” defined as “advice or guidance as to the interpretation or proper application of the Customs related laws…regarding a specific Customs transaction…[that] is either prospective, current, or completed.” See 19 C.F.R. § 177.11(a).
By contrast, the CF 29 here was simply a statement by the Port that it intended to rate advance the imported merchandise on the basis of the Customs laboratory report. It is quite different than the interpretive rulings and decisions noted above. Accordingly, we conclude that the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1625 were not triggered by the issuance of the CF 29 by the Port. While this conclusion precludes protestant’s treatment claim, we will address the remaining elements of that claim.
Section 177.12(c)(i)(A) through (C), CBP regulations, (19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c)) provides that to establish a treatment claim the following must be shown:
(A) There was an actual determination by a Customs officer regarding the facts and issues involved in the claimed treatment;
(B) The Customs officer making the actual determination was responsible for the subject matter on which the determination was made; and
(C) Over a 2-year period immediately preceding the claim of treatment, Customs consistently applied that determination on a national basis as reflected in liquidations of entries or reconciliations or other Customs actions with respect to all or substantially all of that person’s Customs transactions involving materially identical facts and issues.
Section 177.12(c)(ii) continues:
The determination of whether the requisite treatment occurred will be made by Customs on a case-by-case basis and will involve an assessment of all relevant factors. In particular, Customs will focus on the past transactions to determine whether there was an examination of the merchandise (where applicable) by Customs or the extent to which those transactions were otherwise reviewed by Customs to determine the proper application of the Customs laws and regulations. For purposes of establishing whether the requisite treatment occurred, Customs will give diminished weight to transactions involving small quantities or values, and Customs will give no weight whatsoever to informal entries and to other entries or transactions which Customs, in the interest of commercial facilitation and accommodation, processes expeditiously and without examination or Customs officer review.
Section 177.12(c)(i)(C), provides that for a treatment claim to be successful, the importer must put forth a detailed list of transactions involving materially identical facts and issues. Gunther Mele supplemented its original submission by providing this office with a list of entries that excluded those entered pursuant to “bypass” procedures, which, according to CBP’s regulations, will be given no weight in this analysis. This is because the entries have not undergone sufficient review or examination. See Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, Protestant concedes it is unable to demonstrate that the list includes substantially identical transactions. Due to the individualized product Gunther Mele provides to its customers, a shipment of plastic jewelry boxes described in entry documentation or invoices only as “Roma,” for example, does not on its own establish that an entry of plastic-coated paper-covered plastic boxes entered the United States, because the entry documentation and invoices do not specify what material was used on the outer covering of the box chosen by the domestic retailer who placed the order. Thus, Gunther Mele has not satisfied its evidentiary burden for this requirement.
Section 177.12(c)(i)(A), CBP regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c)) requires that an “actual determination” be made by a Customs officer regarding the facts involved in the claimed treatment. Gunther Mele argues that it received an “actual determination” on the classification of the subject merchandise by Customs, by virtue of the “Import Specialist Comments” column of the CBP Importer Trade Activity report (or ITRAC). Specifically, Gunther Mele states that the ITRAC data memorializes over 50 actual determinations by various import specialists regarding the classification of paper-covered plastic jewelry boxes over a five year period preceding the Notice of Action. Two partially redacted examples are as follows:
Port
Entry Number
Entry Date
Line Number
Import Specialist Comments
Liq Date
Liquidation Type
Products on entry line
10901
XXX-XXXX-583-9
20091117
001
JEWERLY BOXES CLASSIFICATION VERIFIED AS PER INVOICE, CATALOGUE, COMMODITY FILE. ACCEPT AS ENTERED. PJC. 12/3/09
10OCT10
NLIQ LIQ TYPE 1 NO CHANGE 1OCT10
[Blank]
10901
XXX-XXXX-271-6
20100113
001
EMPTY PLASTIC BOXES COVERED WITH PAPER PER INVOICE AND PREVIOUS SAMPLES REQUESTED JN
26NOV10
NLIQ LIQ TYP 1 NO CHANGE 26 NOV10
Custom paper covered plastic hinged jewelry box for James & Son Cut corner (leatherette paper) and Horizon (leatherette)
Gunther Mele is relying on the reference to the words “No Change” inserted into the “Liquidation Type” column as evidence that its imports were found by an import specialist to be compliant, and further, that this amounts to an official act by CBP upon which Gunther Mele’s treatment claim rests. The CIT considered whether ITRAC data constituted an “actual determination” in a 19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c) analysis in its decision in Kahrs International, Inc. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1251, supra. The Kahrs Court stated, “the notation “OK COMPLIANT” found in ITRAC data under its analysis, does not have any particular significance relative to the propriety of the classification of the merchandise and, in fact, could refer to an array of criteria, such as that the goods match the product description, or that no contraband was found, or that the quantities match up.” Id at 1290. Furthermore, of the sixty or so lines of ITRAC data provided to this office regarding this protest only a fraction of those lines regard the time period relevant in this matter. Of those, even fewer contain any comments at all in the “Products on Entry Line” column. Still others list in the “Import Specialist Comments” notes that refer to products not at issue here, (e.g. “Merch-bags”). Hence, as the court concluded in Kahrs, we do not agree that a notation of “No Change” amounts to an “actual determination” made by a Customs officer. Gunther Mele has not met its evidentiary burden here.
Gunther Mele has failed to establish that any of the entries subject to the protest are substantially similar to those previously liquidated in subheading 4202.99, HTSUS or that such previous liquidations represented an actual determination by the port that the merchandise was classifiable in subheading 4202.99, HTSUS.
Furthermore, Section 19 C.F.R. §177.12(c)(iii)(C), CBP regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c)) states:
Customs will not find that a treatment was accorded to a person’s transactions if:
(A) The person’s own transaction were not accorded the treatment in questions over the 2-year period immediately preceding the claim of treatment;
(B) The issue in question involves the admissibility of merchandise;
(C) The person made a material false statement or material omission in connection with a Customs transaction or in connection with the review of a Customs transaction and that statement or omission affected the determination on which the treatment claim is based; or
(D) Customs advises the person regarding the manner in which the transaction should be presented to customs and the person failed to follow that advice.
In this case CBP received from protestant a Gunther Mele product catalog with descriptive stickers labelling its merchandise, including the subject merchandise. The stickers stated, “4202.99.1000 PAPER COVERED.” Yet, CBP Laboratory Reports all concluded that the subject merchandise is paper coated with an acrylic type plastic. The record shows the Port of Buffalo relied on this false description in liquidating the entries at issue. Gunther Mele asserts that it was their “genuine belief” that the paper covering did not have plastic sheeting, and the company thus believed it had classified the goods correctly. But this assertion does not alter the fact that false information was provided.
For of all the reasons discussed above, Gunther Mele has not been accorded “treatment” pursuant to § 177.12(c), CBP regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.12 et seq.).
HOLDING:
By application of GRI 1, the subject jewelry box is specifically provided for in subheading 4202.92.90, HTSUS, as “Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attaché cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similar containers; travelling bags, insulated food or beverage bags, toiletry bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper: Other: With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials: Other.” The general column one rate of duty is 17.6% ad valorem.
Gunther Mele was not accorded treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2) and 19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c). As such, the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2) and 19 C.F.R. § 177.12(c) were not triggered and protestant is not entitled to liquidation of the subject merchandise under subheading 4202.99.10, HTSUS.
You are instructed to DENY the protest.
In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook you are to mail this decision together with the CBP Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 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 other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division