HQ 956515: PRD 2002-94-100173; Aluminum Coated Steel Sheet in Coils; Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Nonalloy Steel; Protest Denied For Failure to Produce Evidence in Support of Claim Dear Sir:

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 956515

                            SEPTEMBER 20, 1994

CLA-2:CO:R:C:M    956515 JAS

CATEGORY:    Classification

TARIFF NO.:  7210.60.00

District Director of Customs
423 Canal Street, Rm. 245
New Orleans, LA 70130

RE:  PRD 2002-94-100173; Aluminum Coated Steel Sheet in Coils;
     Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Nonalloy Steel; Protest
     Denied For Failure to Produce Evidence in Support of Claim 
   
Dear Sir:

     This is our decision on Application for Further Review of
Protest 2002-94-100173, dated February 3, 1994.  The issue is
whether, at the time of importation, certain aluminum coated
steel sheet in coils was of alloy or nonalloy steel

     Protests against decisions of the appropriate Customs
officers must be in conformity with applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements.  Under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1), a protest
of a decision under subsection (a) of section 1514 must set forth
distinctly and specifically each decision as to which protest is
made.  United States v. E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 CCPA 89, C.A.D.
291 (1945); United States v. Parksmith Corp., 514 F. 2d 1052, 62
CCPA 76 (1975), and related cases.  In addition, the Customs
Regulations require that a protest set forth the nature of, and
justification for the objection set forth distinctly and
specifically with respect to each decision.  19 CFR 174.13(a)(6). 

     The scope of review in a protest filed under 19 U.S.C. 1514
is limited to the administrative record.  Customs will consider
all relevant allegations that are supported by competent
evidence.  In acting on a protest, however, Customs lacks the
legal authority to assume facts and arguments that are not
presented and, therefore, not in the official record.

     In this case, protest is properly made against your decision
in liquidating the relevant entry under subheading 7210.60.00,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as flat-
rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel.  Your decision was
based on the invoice and mill certificate which did not confirm
the required alloy content of the steel.  However, while                              - 2 -

protestant's representative maintains that the steel is
sufficiently alloyed to support classification in subheading
7225.90.00, HTSUS, as flat-rolled products of iron or other alloy
steel, he has provided no evidence to support this claim, nor is
there other evidence of record from which we can independently
determine the validity of the claim.
     
     Based on protestant's failure to comply with the
requirements of 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6), the protest should be
DENIED.  In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs
Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised
Protest Directive, you should 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 or
entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished
prior to mailing the decision.  Sixty days from the date of the
decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to
make the decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs
Rulings Module in ACS and to the public via the Diskette
Subscription Service, the Freedom of Information Act and other
public access channels.


                              Sincerely,


                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division