HQ 086353: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1303-8-000453

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 086353

                        February 20, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  086353  NLP

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 766.2560

District Director of Customs
40 South Gay Street
Baltimore, MD  21202

RE:  Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No.
     1303-8-000453

Dear Sir:

     This protest was filed against your decisions in the
liquidations of various entries covering shipments of porcelain
articles produced in China.

FACTS:

     The articles at issue in this protest are various porcelain
vases and jars which were imported by Peking Arts, Inc., of
Rockville, Maryland, from the People's Republic of China.  The
dates of entry for the merchandise were November 12, 1987,
December 2, 1987, and December 31, 1987.  On importation, the
porcelain vases and jars were classified in 534.9400, Tariff
Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA), which provides
for articles of non-bone chinaware or of subporcelain, dutiable
at 9 percent, and also subject to an additional duty of 6.6
percent ad valorem under item 766.30, TSUS, which provides for
articles imported for sale and claimed to be classifiable under
item 766.20, TSUS, or 766.25, TSUS, but which were found not to
be authentic antiques.  The protestant states that the Chinese
porcelain vases and jars were made over 100 years before the date
of their entry and, as a result, they should have been
classified under 766.25 TSUS, which provides duty free treatment
for antique articles.

ISSUE:

     Did the evidence submitted by the protestant show that the
merchandise involved was over 100 years old at the date of
entry?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     The protestant has submitted as evidence of antiquity
documentation attesting to the authenticity of the imported
antiques.  This documentation includes:




                               -2-

     1. A statement, dated February 12, 1988, from the Director
        of Sotheby's Chinese Works of Art Division that the
        celadon-glazed vase and blue and white vase were
        manufactured more than 100 years before the date of their
        entry;

     2. A letter, dated February 10, 1988, to the District
        Director Of Customs from the manager of the Tianjin
        Branch of the China National Arts and Crafts Import &
        Export Corporation, together with three certificates of
        Antiquity issued by them;

     3. A memorandum, dated February 11, 1988, from the Tianjin
        City Government Foreign Trade Bureau attesting to the
        validity of the certifications in number 2, above;

     4. A letter, dated February 18,1988, to the District
        Director of Customs in Baltimore from Wenchow Importing
        Co., an importer of Chinese art and furniture, attesting
        to the fact that, based on the samples and the
        photographs they received, the vases and jars were over
        100 years old;

     5. A letter, dated March 8, 1988 from Barry Rogers,
        Appraiser, confirming that the listed articles were made
        between 1800 and 1860;

     6. A letter, dated July, 22, 1988, from Jane Marsden
        Antiques, a dealer of antique Chinese porcelainware, as
        to the authenticity of the subject articles;

     7. A letter, dated September 22, 1988, from Boone Antiques,
        Inc., attesting to the authenticity of the Celadon vases
        and the blue and white vases;

     There is no indication as to why these certifications and
letters were not deemed to be conclusive evidence that the
porcelain vases and jars were over 100 years old at the date of
their entry into the United States.  It is our position that
based on the evidence submitted, the imported articles are
properly classifiable as other antiques under item 766.2560,
TSUSA, and entitled to free entry.










                               -3-

HOLDING:

     The protest should be allowed.  A copy of this decision
should be attached to your Form 19 Notice of Action to be sent to
the protestant.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division