CON-9-CO:R:C:E 221997 SLR
Gerald Horn, Esq.
Soller, Shayne & Horn
46 Trinity Place
New York, NY 10006
RE: Sample Books from Canada
Dear Mr. Horn:
This is in response to your letters of December 30, 1990 and
October 22, 1991, written on behalf of your client, the National
Sample Card Co., concerning the status of sample books imported
from Canada under temporary importation under bond (TIB)
provision 9813.00.20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA). In the December letter, you ask that
Customs forward its approval of three submitted documents, each
outlining a procedure whereby your client's merchandise would be
destroyed outside of Customs supervision, in lieu of exportation.
In the October letter, you request that Customs reconsider
Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 088753 of September 19, 1991 --
a protest decision effectively denying certain sample books TIB
status.
Regarding your December proposal, we do not believe it
operationally feasible to provide a blanket approval for the
destruction of the sample books without Customs having the
opportunity to observe the destruction under Customs supervision
as provided in section 10.39(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
10.39(a)). Consequently, we cannot accommodate your request.
As you know, an article imported under TIB must be exported
within one year from the date of importation. This initial
period, however, may be extended for further periods which, when
added to the initial one year, may not exceed a total of three
years.
Given the nature of the sample books, particularly the fact
of changing styles, a blanket extension up to the allowable three
year period does not appear unreasonable. The decision to grant
extensions, however, ultimately rests with the district director.
See 19 CFR 10.37. Within any allotted time period, your client
may satisfy the TIB requirements by exporting or destroying the
sample books in a manner consistent with the regulations.
-2-
As for our September 19, 1991 decision, HRL 088753 concerned
an application for further review of three protests. There, we
found a failure to present competent evidence in support of the
protest and instructed the district director to deny the
protests. The Notices of Action dated July 18 and 20, 1990
stated the basis for refusing to allow classification under
subheadings 9811.00.60 and 9813.00.20, HTSUSA. Without evidence
to rebut those findings there is no ground on which to grant the
protests. Our review of the file and the evidence did not, in
our opinion, provide such grounds. Our records show that the
protests were denied. Once a protest denial is issued, the
Customs Service cannot reconsider the issue. San Francisco
Newspaper Printing Co. v. United States, 9 CIT 517, 519,
620 F. Supp. 738, 740 (1985). Consequently, we cannot entertain
your reconsideration request.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division