PRO-2-02-RR:IT:EC 227411 PH
Port Director of Customs
United States Customs Service
1315 South 27th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
RE: Protest 2605-95-100037; Surety Protest; 19 U.S.C.
1514(c)(1); 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)
Dear Madame or Sir:
The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for
further review. We have considered the protest and our decision
The protestant's request for further review may be summarily
disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the
administrative record, and the protestant has not presented any
evidence in support of its bald assertions. The Customs Service
will not grant further review of a blanket protest. The
protestant must comply with the statutory and regulatory
requirements. Under 19 U.S.C. 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., 62 CCPA 76, 514 F. 2d 1052, C.A.D. 1149 (1975);
American Commerce Co. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 98, 173 F.
Supp. 812, C.D. 2072 (1959); United States v. E. H. Bailey & Co.,
32 CCPA 89, C.A.D. 291 (1944).
In this protest, the protestant files a "protective protest"
against Customs decision to "reclassify and/or reappraise the
subject entry", "deny drawback", "assess antidumping or
countervailing duties, marking duties, vessel repair duties, or
any other special duties, charges or exaction, including but not
limited to interest." The protest also protests "the untimely
liquidation or reliquidation and/or unlawful suspension or
extension of liquidation as notification was inadequately
issued", and "any clerical error or mistake of fact made on the
subject entry." The protestant "protests the liability of the
subject liquidations [on the basis that] [s]urety presently has
no information indicating that [the protestant surety] is in fact
the surety on the bond(s) used to secure the merchandise in
The Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)) require that a
protest set forth "[t]he nature of, and justification for the
objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to
each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal." 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 surety-protestant was not surety on the bond(s)
used to secure the merchandise in question (in this regard, we
note that Customs records show the surety-protestant as surety on
the bond used to secure the merchandise in question)).
In this protest, the only assertions which may possibly meet the
requirement for distinct and specific justification (in 19 CFR
174.13(a)(6), see above) are the assertions that the "liquidation
of the subject entry [was] null and void, having been made after
the expiration of the one year and/or four year limitations on
liquidation [under 19 U.S.C. 1504(a)] [and] that the suspension
or extension of liquidation for the subject entry was not
properly issued and was improper for citing a reason other than
one authorized by statute or regulation [under 19 U.S.C.
1504(b)]." In this regard, Customs records show that proper
notices of the extensions of liquidation were issued to both the
importer of record and the surety protestant and that the reason
for extension of liquidation met the statutory requirements (see,
e.g., ruling HQ 226410, April 29, 1996, copy enclosed). Also in
this regard, we note that the case that protestant cites
(Intercargo Insurance Company (Genauer) v. United States, 879 F.
Supp. 1338, 95 CIT 37 (1995), has been reversed and remanded (83
F. 3d 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (cert. den., 117 S. Ct. 943 (1997))).
Based on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be DENIED
IN FULL. A copy of this decision (and of ruling HQ 226410, copy
enclosed) should be attached to the Form 19 and provided to the
protestant as part of the notice of action on the protest.
Trade Compliance Division