HQ 556661: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-91-102533 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 556661

                          May 15, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:S  556661  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-
102533    under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(c)(2)

Dear Sir:

     This is a decision on an Application for Further Review of
the above-referenced protest filed by C & R Customs Brokers,
Inc., on behalf of Kuang Yi Inc., against the assessment of
duties on artificial flowers imported into the U.S. from Macau. 
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) (19 U.S.C.
2461-2466), and our decision follows.

FACTS:

     A protest and Application for Further Review was made by the
protestant against the tariff classification of artificial
flowers under subheading 6702.90.4000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), at a duty rate of 9
percent ad valorem.  Protestant claims that the subject
artificial flowers were manufactured by Fabrica de Flores
Artificials Tai Keong ("Tai Keong") in Macau and should be
classifiable under subheading 6702.90.4000, HTSUSA, and eligible
for duty-free treatment under the GSP.

ISSUE:

     Whether the artificial flowers from Macau are eligible for
duty-free treatment under the GSP.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Under the GSP, eligible articles the growth, product or
manufacture of a designated beneficiary developing country (BDC)
which are imported directly into the customs territory of the
U.S. from a BDC may receive duty-free treatment if the sum of (1)
the cost or value of materials produced in the BDC, plus (2) the
direct costs of the processing operation in the BDC, is
equivalent to at least 35% of the appraised value of the article
at the time of entry.  See 19 U.S.C. 2463(b).

     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).

     In the instant case, the protestant simply asserts that it
was an innocent party because it was under the impression that
Tai Keong was or is a "real manufacturer."  The Customs
Regulations require that a protest contain 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 by the Tai Keong factory.  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 determine whether the materials imported into
Macau and used in the production of the artificial flowers have
undergone a double substantial transformation, so that the cost
or value of these materials may be included in the GSP 35% value-
content requirement.  Therefore, absent compelling evidence to
the contrary, the artificial flowers in this case will not be
eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP.

HOLDING:

     Based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be
denied in full.  A copy of this decision should be attached to
the Customs Form 19 and mailed to the protestant as part of the
notice of action on the protest.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   John A. Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division