HQ 083118: Minolta camera bodies and camera lenses

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 083118

                         March 29, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  083118  JMH

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:

David C. Williams, Esq.
39 Broadway
New York City, New York  10006


RE:  Minolta camera bodies and camera lenses


Dear Mr. Williams:

     This is in response to your request dated October 11, 1988,
for a clarification of Headquarter's Ruling Letter 076497 (HQ
076497), dated May 26, 1988, on behalf of Minolta Corporation
(Minolta).

FACTS:

     Nikon, Inc. (Nikon) entered a shipment of Japanese camera
bodies and camera lenses, Entry No. 4701-83-513095-4, on October
3, 1982, at JFK Airport.   The duty rate for this classification
was 9.7 percent ad valorem. The shipment was liquidated on
October 21, 1983.

     Nikon protested the method of classification and the
subsequent rate of duty assigned.  Nikon's Protest and Request
for Further Review No. 1001-4-000881 was filed on January 19,
1984.  This protest claimed that the importer should be able to
organize his merchandise in the manner he deems to be appropriate
to take advantage of the lowest duty.

     The protest was answered in HQ 076497.  This ruling letter
held that a 35mm camera body with a 50-55mm lens was an entirety.
HQ 076497 also determined that a 35mm camera body with a zoom
lens with focal length of 35mm to 70mm was an entirety.  Lenses
with other focal lengths were determined not to be entireties
with the camera bodies in question.

     Five months following the issuance of this ruling, your
"request for clarification of Headquarters Ruling No. 076497" on
behalf of Minolta was received.  You describe Minolta's plans to
                               -2-


import a 35-80mm zoom lens which is to be sold with Minolta's
most popular SLR camera bodies.  You then present arguments
regarding why Minolta's new zoom lenses should not be governed by
HQ 076497.

ISSUE:

     Whether this office may rule on Minolta's request for a
clarification of HQ 076497?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Section 177 of the Customs Regulations details the
administrative ruling process of the Customs Service.  19 C.F.R.
177 (1989).  Any person who has a "direct and demonstrable
interest" in the importation of merchandise may request a
classification ruling for their merchandise.  19 C.F.R.
177.1(2)(c), 177.2(b)(2)(ii).   Once a ruling is issued, it may
be modified or revoked by the Customs Service.  19 C.F.R. 177.9.
After issuance, the importer can request a reconsideration, file
a protest and request further review or contest the ruling in the
Court of International Trade.  19 C.F.R. 174.  A civil action
must be filed within 180 days after the date the notice of denial
was mailed to Nikon--the date of issuance of the ruling. 19
C.F.R. 174.31.

     You state that you request a "clarification" of HQ 076497.
Whether your request is viewed as a reconsideration or a protest,
it is not a request upon which this office may take action.  HQ
076497 was issued on May 26, 1988, denying Nikon's protest.
Nikon, the real party in interest to the ruling and the protest,
is the only party who can further contest the protest denial.
The only avenue for further review of a protest was the filing of
a civil suit in the Court of International Trade within 180 days
of May 26, 1988.  This did not occur.  This office has no
statutory authority to modify or revoke a protest denial.

     When merchandise is entered which is different from that
previously ruled upon, and the merchandise is entered by a
different party than the party of a previous ruling, the best
course to follow is to request a ruling on that specific
situation.  Alternatively, if an entry has been made and an
unsatisfactory tariff classification is received, the importer or
the importer's agent may protest the classification.

HOLDING:

     Once a protest is denied, the only possibility for further
review of the denial is a civil suit in the Court of


                               -3-


International Trade by the real party in interest.  This office
has no statutory authority to modify or revoke a protest denial.


                              Sincerely,



                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division