Eligibility of women’s cashmere sweaters under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); Altered Certificate of Origin and Visa; Protest 3901-05-100003Dear Sir or Madam:

HQ 967705 May 25, 2005 CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 967705 TMF CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6110.12.1060 Port Director Customs & Border Protection 610 S. Canal Street Room 306 Chicago, IL 60607 RE: Eligibility of women’s cashmere sweaters under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); Altered Certificate of Origin and Visa; Protest 3901-05-100003 Dear Sir or Madam: This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 3901-05-100003, filed by Mast Industries, Inc. FACTS: The protest and request for Application for Further Review (hereinafter “AFR”), which was timely filed on December 30, 2004 is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) denial of AGOA preference for certain women’s cashmere sweaters. The merchandise was liquidated on October 1, 2004. and reclassified in subheading 6110.12.1060, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provided for “Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted: Of wool or fine animal hair: Of Kashmir (cashmere) goats: Wholly of cashmere…Other: Women’s or girls’”, dutiable at 4.4 percent ad valorem. The protestant asserted in the Customs Form 19 the protest was based on an error on the entry summary and that the goods at issue qualify for AGOA preference as verified by the protestant’s import manager. The protestant claims that although a proper visaed invoice and textile certificate of origin were provided at entry, duty was paid pending independent verification of eligibility. The protestant stated in the CF 19 that an AGOA qualifying questionnaire, the original entry package and a revised CF 7501 were submitted to the Port. However, CBP denied AGOA preference on the basis that the AGOA visa and certificate of origin that were submitted at the time of entry were determined to be unacceptable as the AGOA visa had been altered. CBP notified the filer of the reasons for the rejection and requested a new visa be obtained. No valid visa had been submitted with the claim. In the request for Application for Further Review, the protestant provided no basis for AFR as required by 19 CFR §§ 174.24 and 174.25. ISSUE: Whether the Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-05-100003 meets the requirements for review by Headquarters pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24. LAW AND ANALYSIS: The criteria required for the granting of a request for further review are set forth in 19 C.F.R. §174.24 of the Customs Regulations. This section states, in pertinent part, that further review of a protest which otherwise would be denied by the Port Director will be accorded to a party filing an application for further review which meets the requirements of [section] 174.25 when the decision against which the protest was filed: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) 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. Even before we can consider whether any of the entry documentation requirements are sufficient to establish AGOA preference in this case, the protestant must sufficiently establish a basis for AFR. However, upon reviewing this protest to determine whether AFR is warranted, we find that the instant protest does not contain any relevant statements or evidence that substantiate that the subject protest contains any distinguishable facts or legal arguments from any prior decisions issued by CBP. Further, the protestant has not established that the Port’s denial action is inconsistent with any prior Customs rulings, that the protest involves any questions of law or fact that has not been ruled upon by CBP, nor that the protest involves any questions which the Headquarters Office has refused to consider in the form of a request or internal advice. HOLDING: We find that the Protestant fails to meet the criteria of 19 C.F.R. 174.24. Therefore, the Protestant’s request for further review should not have been granted. The protest file is being returned for appropriate action by your office. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial Rulings Division