HQ 083370: Further Review of Protest 3901-6-001250

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 083370

                      February 2, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  083370  PR

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  384.8045

District Director of Customs
6109 South Canal Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607

RE:  Further Review of Protest 3901-6-001250

Dear Sir:

     This protest was filed against your decision on July 25,
1986, in the liquidation of Entry No. XX-XXXXXXX, dated May
27, 1986.  It concerns the classification of garments.

FACTS:

     No sample was submitted although we are advised that
both the importer and its attorney were informed on numerous
occasions that samples must be submitted when a protest is
filed.  The claim is made that the certain unspecified
garments are vests and should be classified under item
384.94, Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated
(TSUSA), which provides for other women's or girls' man-made
fiber garments, not knit and not ornamented.  There is no
statement made, nor evidence submitted to substantiate this
claim although the attorney did put on the protest that if
there are any questions, he may be contacted at a given phone
number.  We note that the entry included electronic
components, footwear, sweaters, blouses, ties, and shirts.

     The documentation submitted with the entry (invoice,
etc.) states that all the wearing apparel articles are knit
and refers to the garments either as shirts or sweaters.
There is no evidence of any nonknit garments imported in the
subject shipment.

ISSUE:

     Two issues were presented: (1) Whether a valid protest
was filed; and (2) Should any of the imported merchandise
have been classified under a provision for other woven
garments of man-made fibers.

                             -2-


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Protestant has not provided one shred of evidence or any
reasons to support its contention that the merchandise was
misclassified.  The documents submitted at the time of entry
in no way support the claimed classification and are
actually adverse to it.   That, by itself, is sufficient to
deny the protest.

     However, we also wish to point out that the protest is
fatally deficient.  Section 174.13(a)(5) and (6), Customs
Regulations, requires that a protest shall contain a specific
description of the merchandise for which the protest is made,
and set forth specifically for each claim the nature of, and
justification for the objection.  Here, Customs is left to
assume which classification(s) were being protested and the
reason(s) for such protest.  Providing a phone number for
Customs to call "For additional information" does not satisfy
the requirements of Section 174.13(a)(5) and (6).

     A protest will be deemed sufficient if it fairly and
accurately apprises Customs of the objection which is raised.
National Carloading Corp. v. United States, 44 Cust. Ct.
493, at 494, Abstract 64258 (1960).  A protest must
sufficiently, in view of all the circumstances, calls Customs
attention to the objections being made so that Customs may
consider and pass upon them.  United States v. Sheldon & Co.,
5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 427, at 429, T.D. 34946 (1914).

     The Customs Court, in Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 72
Cust. Ct. 257, C.D. 4547 (1974), extensively reviewed the
requirements for a valid protest and concluded that the
courts have been very liberal in determining whether a valid
protest existed.   However, the court went on to state:

        In short, the court, taking a liberal posture, has
     held that, however cryptic, inartistic, or poorly drawn
     a communication may be, it is sufficient as a protest
     . . . if it conveys enough information to apprise
     knowledgeable officials of the importer's intent and the
     relief sought.  (at pg. 262)

     Here, the protest merely noted that some article(s)
covered by the concerned entry were classifiable as vests in
a basket tariff provision.  It was not stated if one or more
of the four styles of shirts and/or the sweaters were thought

                             -3-



to be classifiable in that provision.  We assume that the
classification of the footwear and the radios was not in
issue.  Because of the multiple garments involved, recitation
of a tariff provision could not reasonably apprise Customs
officers which merchandise was the subject of the protest,
and the reason(s) for the claimed classification.

HOLDING:

     For the reasons stated above, you should deny the
protest in full.  A copy of this ruling should be attached to
the Form 19, Notice of Action, to be sent to the protestant.


                              Sincerely,




                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division