HQ 556414: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-91-103008 under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2)

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 556414

                        December 11, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:S  556414  WAW

CATEGORY:  Classification

District Director of Customs
Air Transportation Division
5758 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles International Airport
Los Angeles, CA  90045

RE:  Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-91-
103008    under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2)

Dear Sir:

     The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office
for further review.  We have considered the protest, which
contests the denial of duty-free treatment for certain artificial
flowers from Macau under the Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP) and our decision follows.

     Protestant's request for further review may be summarily
disposed of.  The scope of review in this protest is on the
administrative record, and protestant has not presented any
evidence in support of its assertions.  The Customs Service will
not grant further review of a blanket protest.  Protestant must
comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements.  Under 19
U.S.C. section 1514(c)(1) a protest of a decision must set forth
distinctly and specifically each decision as to which protest is
made.  See generally, United States v. Parksmith Corp., 514 F.2d
1052, 62 C.C.P.A. 76 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United
States, 173 F. Supp. 812 (Cust. Ct. 1959); United States v. E.H.
Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A. 89 (1945).

     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 claim.  Section
174.13(a)(6), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)).  The
Customs Service has and will continue to fully consider any
relevant allegation in a protest supported by competent evidence. 
However, in acting on a protest, Customs cannot and will not
assume facts that are not presented (e.g., an unsubstantiated
claim that the manufacturing operations of the artificial flowers
took place in Macau). 

     Pursuant to INV 8-02 CO:TO:C RG, dated January 22, 1991, the
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Operations instructed the
Regional Commissioners that entries of artificial flowers claimed
to be manufactured in Macau by certain factories listed in the
memorandum should be denied GSP treatment and rate advanced via
the issuance of a Proposed Notice of Action (CF 29).  The
supplier in this case, "Tai Keong," is one of the factories which
has been precluded from receiving duty-free treatment under the
GSP pursuant to this memorandum.  Furthermore, the Assistant
Commissioner's memorandum states that the SCR/Hong Kong has
issued reports of investigation concerning the alleged
transshipment of PRC-origin artificial flowers via Macau, which
indicate that the named factories were either "not manufacturing
artificial flowers in Macau, or were incapable of manufacturing
them in the quantities exported to the U.S."  Therefore, the
Assistant Commissioner stated that in the absence of "compelling
evidence" to the contrary, protests filed on the liquidation of
entries from any of the named factories should be denied.   

     With regard to the instant case, protestant has not
submitted any independent evidence in support of its claim that
the artificial flowers should be granted duty-free treatment
under the GSP.  Protestant simply asserts that the importer
relied on the supplier's representations that the merchandise was
manufactured in Macau.  Accordingly, without sufficient
information to indicate that the artificial flowers were
manufactured in Macau (i.e., evidence of processes performed in
Macau such as cutting, dying, texturizing, and injection
molding), we cannot agree with protestant's claim that the
artificial flowers are a "product of" Macau.  Therefore, since
the first country of origin requirement under the GSP has not
been satisfied, we find that the artificial flowers in this case
are ineligible to enter the U.S. duty-free.

     Based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be
denied in full.  A copy of this decision should be attached to
the CF 19, Notice of Action, to satisfy the notice requirement of
section 174.30(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.30(a)).

                                   Sincerely,




                                   John A. Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division