Application for Further Review of Protest No. xxxxxxxxxxx Concerning Classification and Value of Tank Bases

HQ 544691 September 26, 1991 VAL CO:R:C:V 544691 VLB CATEGORY: Classification and Valuation District Director of Customs 909 First Avenue Room 2039 Seattle, Washington 98174 RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. xxxxxxxxxxx Concerning Classification and Value of Tank Bases Dear Sir: This is in response to an Application for Further Review of the above-referenced protest. FACTS: The protestant, Daewoo International (America) Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the protestant"), sold the merchandise at issue to Stearns Catalytic Corporation. From the brief descriptions on a commercial invoice and a Customs Form 6431, the articles in issue are steel foundations or pedestals specially designed to support metal storage tanks of the type classifiable in item 640.35, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS). You classified the merchandise under item 653.00, TSUS, and determined a value of $265,765 for the merchandise. The concerned national import specialist concurred in your classification of the merchandise under the provision for structures and parts thereof, of base metal, in item 653.00, TSUS. The rate of duty was 6.2 percent. The protestant maintains that the correct classification is in item 609.84, TSUS, angles, shapes and sections, drilled, punched, or otherwise advance, dutiable at the rate of 4.8 percent ad valorem. Alternatively, protestant claims the provision for other columns, pillars, posts, beams, girders, and similar structural units, not in part of alloy iron or steel, in item 652.94, TSUS, applies. The rate of duty was 2.9 percent ad valorem. - 2 - The protestant further maintains that the appraised value of the merchandise should be $239,562 rather than the $265,765 appraised value that you determined. Specifically, the protestant's claim is as follows: It is claimed that the proper basis of appraisement of the said Bases is under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1), Transaction Value of the imported merchandise, or under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(e)(1), Computed Value and that the value under these two bases of appraisement is reflected by the invoiced values, less the non-dutiable charges, as entered. Any additional value to be added to the entered values as part of the price paid under Transaction Value, or under Computed Value, should be prorated according to the entered values of the tanks entered free of duty under Item A640.35, and the entered values of the Bases entered under Item 653.00 at 6.2%; or prorated according to the value of the components and parts the subject of the entire contract. ISSUES: (1) Whether the imported merchandise was properly classified under item 653.00, TSUS. (2) Whether the imported merchandise was properly valued under transaction value at $265,765. LAW AND ANALYSIS: In the first issue involving the classification of the imported merchandise, the protestant has not presented any factual or legal arguments from which we can conclude whether either of the two claimed classifications more specifically described the merchandise than item 653.00, TSUS. Independently, however, we note that base metal articles serving primarily to resist heavy weights or support heavy loads have been held to be within the common meaning of the term structure for tariff purposes. S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. U.S., 82 Cust. Ct. 197, C.D. 4802 (1979). - 3 - Similarly, the protestant has not presented sufficient information to allow us to conclude that the appraised value was incorrect. We note that you indicated that the appraised value was based on proof of payment and accounting records obtained from Sterns Catalytic, the buyer. The file does not contain any information to the contrary. HOLDING: Insufficient evidence exists in the file to conclude that the classification and appraisement of the merchandise was incorrect. You are directed to deny the protest. A copy of this decision should be attached to form 19, notice of action, to be sent to the protestant. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division