HQ 953216
APRIL 2 1993
CLA-2:CO:R:C:M 953216 JAS
District Director of Customs
127 North Water St.
Ogdensburg, NY 13669
RE: Stic-Klip; 3-piece Metal Fastener; Nail, Heading 7317;
Article of Iron or Steel; PRD 0712-92-101297
Dear Sir:
This is our decision on Application for Further Review of
Protest No. 0712-92-101297, dated November 24, 1992, filed on
behalf of Eckel Industries of Canada Ltd., against your action in
liquidating an entry of metal fasteners from Canada.
FACTS:
A submitted sample consists of a 7 3/8 inch-long #11 gauge
wire welded perpendicular to a 2 inch x 2 inch base plate with
forty nine (49) perforations. A special clip fitted over the
wire was not sent with the sample. The three components are of
electrolytic zinc coated steel. Using one stic-klip per sq. ft.,
the article is designed for attaching insulation materials to
concrete, metal and other surfaces. The base plate is bonded to
a surface using an adhesive and the insulation fitted over the
wire and fastened by the clip.
The fasteners were entered under the provision for nails and
similar articles, of iron or steel, of one piece construction
made of round wire, in 7317.00.55, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). Protestant offers no factual or legal
arguments in support of this classification.
The concerned import specialist contends that this 3-piece
article is not a nail in the commercial sense and liquidated the
entry under subheading 7326.90.90, HTSUS, as other articles of
iron or steel. - 2 -
ISSUE:
Whether the 3-piece stic klip steel fastener is a nail or
similar article of heading 7317.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
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. 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).
In acting on a protest, 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 under
subheading 7326.90.90, HTSUS. However, protestant has submitted
no evidence in support of his claim under subheading 7117.00.50.
The limited documentation submitted is insufficient to allow us
to independently determine the validity of the claim.
HOLDING:
Based on protestant's failure to comply with the
requirements of 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6), this protest should be
denied. A copy of this decision should be attached to the
Customs Form 19 and mailed to the protestant, through his
representative, as part of the notice of action on the protest.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director