Protest 0201-96-100180; Various Chemicals

HQ 959964 May 7, 1998 CLA-2 RR:CR:GC 959964 CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION TARIFF NO.: 3202.10.1000 et al. Port Director U.S. Customs Service P.O. BOX 1490 St. Albans, VT 05478 Re: Protest 0201-96-100180; Various Chemicals Dear Port Director: This is our decision regarding Protest 0201-96-100180, concerning your classification of various chemicals, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Annotated) (HTSUSA). FACTS: Various chemicals were entered on October 3, 1995, and the entry was liquidated on February 16, 1996. In a protest timely filed on May 13, 1996, the classification of the following merchandise was protested: 1. Citrizinic acid 2. Parvol NB 3. Paralene PLP 4. Paralene PWG 5. Parvol Filler PP 6. Opcalin Acrylic F2/93 7. Opcalin Acrylic 147 8. Opcalin Binder 77M 9. Idranil Supra Brown RG 10. Idranil Supra Brown M 11. Kromaton Bordeaux 12. Kromaton Red 13. Idranil Supra Black 14. Idranil Supra Lemon 15. Idranil Supra Orange 16. Airedale Black F2G 17. Airedale Navy Blue 5RXM 150 18. Airedale Red Brown BVM 19. Airedale Scarlet GM 20. Airedale Orange AGD 125 21. Airedale Yellow 3GM 250 22. Yoracryl Black WR Liquid 90 23. Airedale Grey BX 24. Airedale Brown GT 140 25. Airedale Fawn Y 26. Airedale Brown RD 27. Airedale Brown DS 28. Airedale Brown EG 29. Airedale Brown F36 120 30. Airedale Brown ER 31. Airedale Brown GF 200 32. Airedale Yellow FY ISSUE: Whether the chemical compounds are properly classified. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Review of this file indicates clearly that the instant protest is procedurally flawed. Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1514), requires that "a protest must set forth distinctly and specifically...the nature of each objection and the reasons therefor." Furthermore, section 174.13 of the Customs Regulations, relating to the content of protests, requires that a protest contain "the nature of, and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal." The instructions on Section III #9 of Customs Form 19, on which the protest was filed, set forth the same information as well as the phrase "General statements of conclusions are not sufficient." Here, the protestant makes no attempt to set forth the nature of his objection. In section III #9 of the Customs Form 19 submitted in connection with this protest, it states that the "chemicals found on this entry were misclassified." In addition, protestant has attached an invoice and handwritten the desired classifications adjacent to the name of the merchandise. Neither factual material nor argument was presented. A bald assertion that merchandise was misclassified does not meet the requirements of the statute or regulation. A protest must give some reason why Customs' classification is incorrect, not merely state that it is so. There is no portion of the instant protest which can be construed to set forth any argument or line of reasoning in support of protestant's contention that the subject merchandise is misclassified. It is not the responsibility of the Customs Service to assume arguments on behalf of the protestant. HOLDING: The protest fails to meet the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1514 (c)(1)(C) and 19 CFR 174.13 (a)(6) for further review, therefore the decision of the port director will not be disturbed. The protest is denied. 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 together with the Customs Form 19, Notice of Action, 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