CBP Ruling H089756

HQ H089756 July 17, 2012 OT:RR:CTF:VS H089756 KSG Port Director U.S. Customs & Border Protection 2350 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E. #1000 Houston TX 77032-3100 Re: Protest #5301-09-100695; zinc ingots; GSP Dear Director: This is in response to an Application for Further Review filed by counsel on behalf of Glencore Ltd., in response to Protest #5301-09-100695 involving imported zinc ingots. FACTS: This case involves imported zinc ingots which the importer requested preferential tariff treatment for under the Generalized System of Preferences ("GSP"). The importer stated that the imported goods are a product of Kazakhstan. The goods were entered on July 19, 2008. The import specialist issued a Request for Information (CBP Form 28) dated August 1, 2008, requesting further information to support the GSP claim. Your office denied GSP preference for the goods. The invoice for the ingots bears an address in Switzerland, indicates that the goods were delivered FOB Ventspils, Latvia, and does not include any address located in Kazakhstan or reference to Kazahstan. The invoice states that the goods were "wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a single beneficiary developing country" but did not provide the name of any country. There was no proof of sale for the goods from Kazakhstan. The GSP Certificate of Origin (Form A) includes an address in Kazakhstan in Box 1 (the exporter), and for the means of transport (box 3), it states "Kazakhstan by Railway to Ventspils from Ventspils to USA by sea...." However, the importer did not provide proof of the railway shipment of the goods from Kazakhstan to Latvia. In Box 4, the Form A states: "Issued retrospectively." The GSP form is signed (not clear who signed it) and stamped with the Kazzinc seal and dated July 4, 2008. In a letter dated October 15, 2010, counsel submitted a 5-page document from the 2005 Mineral Yearbook, U.S. Geological Survey. This document discusses mineral production in Kazakhstan. Counsel also submitted a 3-page document titled "GSP Declaration of Kazzinc" listing three bills of lading showing shipment from Latvia to the United States, as well as a general description of processing operations performed to produce zinc ingots, and zinc ore, which was signed, stamped, and dated October 18, 2010. ISSUE: Whether the importer submitted sufficient documentation to support the GSP claim for the imported zinc ingots. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C.A. 2461-65), authorizes the President to establish the GSP to provide duty-free treatment for eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries ("BDCs"). Articles produced in a BDC may qualify for duty-free treatment under the GSP if the good are imported directly into the customs territory of the U.S. from the BDC and the sum or value of materials produced in the BDC plus the direct costs of the processing operations performed in the BDC is equivalent to at least 35 percent of the appraised value of the article at the time of entry into the U.S. See 19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(2) and (3). Kazakhstan is a BDC for purposes of the GSP and may be afforded preferential treatment under the HTSUS. See General Note ("GN") 4(a), HTSUS. We concur with the conclusion of your office that there was insufficient documentation submitted to support this claim. The five page article merely demonstrates that zinc exists in Kazakhstan; it does not demonstrate that this zinc was produced in Kazakhstan. There was no documentation submitted that would show that this zinc was produced in Kazakhstan. The three page GSP declaration is dated two years after the entry and lists bills of lading which show shipment from Latvia to the U.S., but does not show the origin of the good or the movement of the goods from Kazakhstan to Latvia. There was no further documentation submitted to support the Certificate of Origin, which indicates movement of the goods via railway, or a sale from the exporter to the importer. Therefore, the importer has not shown that the imported zinc is a product of Kazakhstan or that it meets the "imported directly" requirements. Accordingly, this protest is hereby denied. HOLDING: The protest in this case is denied. CBP properly denied GSP preference to the imported zinc ingots in this case. In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and 26), you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, 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 other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial & Trade Facilitation Division