HQ 546391: Review of denial of the Application for Further Review for Protests 5201-96-100175 and 5201-96-100183

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 546391

                           June 7, 1996

RR:IT:VA  546391 KCC

CATEGORY:  Valuation

Peter S. Herrick, Esq.
3520 Crystal View Court
Miami, Florida  33133

RE:  Review of denial of the Application for Further Review for
     Protests 5201-96-100175 and 5201-96-100183

Dear Mr. Herrick:

     This is in reference to your letter of May 24, 1996, on
behalf of Everfit USA Corporation, requesting a review of the
denials by the Miami Port Director of Application for Further
Review for Protests 5201-96-100175 and 5201-96-100183 under the
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Title VI
(Customs Modernization), 617, amending 515 of the Tariff Act of
1930, [19 U.S.C. 1515(c)].  As amended, 19 U.S.C. 1515(c)
provides, in part, as follows:

     [i]f a protesting party believes that an application for
     further review was erroneously or improperly denied or was
     denied without authority for such action, it may file with
     the Commissioner of Customs a written request that the
     denial of the application for further review be set aside. 
     Such request must be filed within 60 days after the date of
     the notice of the denial.  The Commissioner of Customs may
     review such request and, based solely on the information
     before the Customs Service at the time the application for
     further review was denied, may set aside the denial of the
     application for further review and void the denial of the
     protest, if appropriate.

     According to the documents in the file, the protestant filed
timely protests concerning Customs appraisement of the subject
merchandise pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f).  The protests
included an Application for Further Review based on 174.24(b),
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.24(b)), stating that the
protests require "an interpretation of facts and questions of law
which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or
the U.S. Court of International Trade."  The Applications for
Further Review and protests were both denied on May 22, 1996. 
The request for reconsideration of the denial of the Applications
for Further Review and protests was timely filed with this office
within 60 days, on May 24, 1996.

     To determine why the Miami Port Director denied the protests
and Applications for Further Review, we contacted Import
Specialist Roslyn Haynes.  Ms. Haynes explained that the
Applications for Further Review were erroneous denied.  She had
recommended denial of the protests but she also recommended that
the Applications for Further Review be forwarded to Headquarters. 
However, both the protests and Applications for Further Review
were denied and the Customs Protest Form 19s were mailed to you. 
In as much as the denial of the Applications for Further Review
were in error, we are granting your request to set aside the
denial of the Applications for Further Review and to void the
denial of the protests.  The Miami Port Director has been
notified by this office to grant the Applications for Further
Review and to forward the protest files to this office.  At that
time, the merits of the protests shall be decided by this office.

     If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact Kathleen Clarke, of my staff, at (202) 482-7063 or (202)
482-7010.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   Acting Director,
                                   International Trade Compliance
Division