HQ 956808: PRD 1303-93-100034; Alloy of Cobalt, Unwrought Cobalt; Cobalt Waste and Scrap, Subheading 8105.10.90; Denial of Protest for Failure to Provide Evidence in Support of Claim, 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)

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 956808

                            OCTOBER 26, 1994

CLA-2:CO:R:C:M    956808 JAS

CATEGORY:    Classification

TARIFF NO.:  8105.10.30

District Director of Customs
200 St. Paul Street, 28th. Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202

RE:  PRD 1303-93-100034; Alloy of Cobalt, Unwrought Cobalt;
     Cobalt Waste and Scrap, Subheading 8105.10.90; Denial of 
     Protest for Failure to Provide Evidence in Support of
     Claim, 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6) 

Dear Sir:

     This is our decision on Protest No. 1303-93-100034, filed
against your action in classifying certain cobalt material.  The
entry was liquidated on November 27, 1992, and this protest
timely filed on February 19, 1993.

     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
to liquidate the entry in question under subheading 8105.10.30,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as
unwrought cobalt alloys.  However, protestant has submitted no
evidence in support of the claim that the material is waste and - 2 -

scrap under subheading 8108.10.90, HTSUS, nor is there other
evidence of record from which we can independently determine the
validity of the claim.  In fact, the invoice description of this
material confirms it is an alloy of cobalt, as defined in Chapter
81, Additional U.S. Note 1, HTSUS, a fact protestant does not
contest.  
     
     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