HQ 544691: Application for Further Review of Protest No. xxxxxxxxxxx Concerning Classification and Value of Tank Bases

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 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