OT:RR:CTF:VS H323405 JMV
Center Director
Apparel, Footwear, and Textiles CEE
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
139 Southern Road
Savannah, Georgia 31405
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 5206-19-100137; Peru Trade Promotion Agreement; Origin
Dear Center Director,
The following is our decision regarding the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest No. 5206-19-100137, timely filed on February 19, 2019, on behalf of the protestant, Lucky 7 Fashion Super Discount III, Inc. (“Lucky”). Lucky contests U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) denial of its claim for preferential tariff treatment under the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (“PTPA”).
FACTS:
This protest stems from an origin verification wherein CBP found that Lucky has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the garments at issue qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA. Lucky is a Florida based company that imports apparel and merchandise manufactured in Peru. Lucky then distributes the imported goods to its stores located in South Florida, which are either wholesale or retail, and offers private label services. Lucky states that its manufacturer is Peru Cotton Tex Sac (“Peru Cotton”), however, Peru Cotton contracts out all production to various cutting and sewing operators.
The verification involved eight entries of textile goods. Lucky and CBP agreed to limit the scope of the verification to one entry line per entry, all of which fell under either Chapter 61 or 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), which cover Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted and Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, not knitted or crocheted, respectively. Specifically, these entries included women’s overalls, women’s knitted t-shirts, women’s cotton shorts, men’s cotton trousers, women’s knitted cotton dresses, men’s knitted shorts, and men’s knitted t-shirts classified under subheadings 6103.43, 6104.42, 6109.90, 6203.42, and 6204.62, HTSUS.
In support of this protest, for each of the entry lines examined, Lucky provided:
suppliers’ “Affidavit of Origin” for the sewing thread and fabric,
transportation documents between various producers in the production process,
lab test reports on sewing thread and fabric fiber,
proofs of payments,
purchase orders,
production orders for sewing and cutting operations, and
invoices.
We note that none of the affidavits are “sworn to” or notarized.
ISSUE:
Whether the importer provided sufficient documentation to sustain a claim of origin under the PTPA.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The PTPA was signed by the Governments of Peru and the United States on April 12, 2006. The PTPA was approved by the U.S. Congress with the enactment on December 14, 2007, of the PTPA Implementation Act (“the Act”), Pub. L. 110-138, 121 Stat. 1455 (19 U.S.C. 3805). General Note (“GN”) 32 of the HTSUS implements the PTPA. GN 32(b) sets forth the criteria for determining whether a good is an originating good for purposes of the PTPA. GN 32(b) states:
For the purposes of this note, subject to the provisions of subdivisions (c), (d), (m) and (n) thereof, a good imported into the customs territory of the United States is eligible for treatment as an originating good under the terms of this note if—
(i) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both;
(ii) the good was produced entirely in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both, and—
(A) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification specified in subdivision (n) of this note; or
(B) the good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional value content or other requirements specified in subdivision (n) of this note; and the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of this note; or
the good was produced entirely in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both, exclusively from materials described in subdivision (b)(i) or (b)(ii) of this note.
In the instant case, Lucky does not claim that the imported garments meet the definition of the expression “good wholly obtained or produced” listed under GN 32(c)(i). Since the garments are not considered “wholly obtained or produced” as set forth in GN 32(c)(i), HTSUS, we must determine whether the non-originating materials would satisfy the applicable change in tariff classification. The men’s shorts are classified under subheading 6103.43, HTSUS. The rule of origin for this subheading is:
A change to subheadings 6103.41 through 6103.49 from any other chapter, except from headings 5106 through 5113, 5204 through 5212, 5307 through 5308, 5310 through 5311, 5401 through 5402, subheading 5403.20, 5403.33 through 5403.39, 5403.42 through 5403.49, headings 5404 through 5408, 5508 through 5516 or 6001 through 6006, provided that the good is cut or knit to shape, or both and sewn or otherwise assembled in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
Lucky argues that the tariff shift rule for the men’s shorts is satisfied because the shorts are manufactured in the territory from 100% polyester fiber classified in heading 5506, HTSUS.
The women’s cotton knitted dresses are classified under subheading 6104.42, HTSUS, with the following tariff shift rule:
A change to subheadings 6104.41 through 6104.49 from any other chapter, except from headings 5106 through 5113, 5204 through 5212, 5307 through 5308, 5310 through 5311, 5401 through 5402, subheading 5403.20, 5403.33 through 5403.39, 5403.42 through 5403.49, headings 5404 through 5408, 5508 through 5516 or 6001 through 6006, provided that the good is cut or knit to shape, or both and sewn or otherwise assembled in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
Lucky argues that the tariff shift rule for the women’s cotton knitted dresses is satisfied because the dresses are manufactured in the territory from 95% cotton, 5% spandex fiber classified in heading 5506, HTSUS.
The men’s knitted t-shirts of other textile materials and the women’s knitted t-shirts of other textile materials are classified under subheading 6109.90, HTSUS, with the following tariff shift rule:
A change to headings 6105 through 6111 from any other chapter, except from headings 5106 through 5113, 5204 through 5212, 5307 through 5308, 5310 through 5311, 5401 through 5402, subheading 5403.20, 5403.33 through 5403.39, 5403.42 through 5403.49, headings 5404 through 5408, 5508 through 5516 or 6001 through 6006, provided that the good is cut or knit to shape, or both and sewn or otherwise assembled in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
Lucky argues that the tariff shift rule for the men’s and women’s knitted t-shirts is satisfied because the t-shirts are manufactured in the territory from 95% polyester, 5% spandex fiber classified in heading 5506, HTSUS, and that women’s knitted t-shirts of other textile materials are manufactured from 95% viscose, 5% spandex fiber also classified in heading 5506, HTSUS.
The men’s trousers of cotton are classified under subheading 6203.42, HTSUS, with the following tariff shift rule:
A change to subheadings 6203.41 through 6203.49 from any other chapter, except from headings 5106 through 5113, 5204 through 5212, 5307 through 5308, 5310 through 5311, 5401 through 5402, subheading 5403.20, 5403.33 through 5403.39, 5403.42 through 5403.49, headings 5404 through 5408, 5508 through 5516, 5801 through 5802 or 6001 through 6006, provided that the good is cut or knit to shape, or both and sewn or otherwise assembled in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
Lucky argues that the tariff shift rule for the imported men’s trousers is satisfied because the trousers are manufactured in the territory from 95% polyester, 5% spandex fiber classified in heading 5506, HTSUS.
The women’s dresses of cotton are classified under subheading 6204.42, HTSUS, with the following tariff shift rule:
A change to subheadings 6204.41 through 6204.49 from any other chapter, except from headings 5106 through 5113, 5204 through 5212, 5307 through 5308, 5310 through 5311, 5401 through 5402, subheading 5403.20, 5403.33 through 5403.39, 5403.42 through 5403.49, headings 5404 through 5408, 5508 through 5516, 5801 through 5802 or 6001 through 6006, provided that the good is cut or knit to shape, or both and sewn or otherwise assembled in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
Lucky argues that the tariff shift rule for the women’s dresses of cotton is satisfied because the dresses are manufactured in the territory from 100% cotton fiber classified in heading 5201, HTSUS.
The women’s shorts of cotton and the women’s bib and brace overalls of cotton are classified under subheading 6204.62, HTSUS, with the following tariff shift rule:
A change to subheadings 6204.61 through 6204.69 from any other chapter, except from headings 5106 through 5113, 5204 through 5212, 5307 through 5308, 5310 through 5311, 5401 through 5402, subheading 5403.20, 5403.33 through 5403.39, 5403.42 through 5403.49, headings 5404 through 5408, 5508 through 5516, 5801 through 5802 or 6001 through 6006, provided that the good is cut or knit to shape, or both and sewn or otherwise assembled in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.
Lucky argues that the tariff shift rule for the women’s cotton shorts, and bib and brace overalls is satisfied because the shorts and overalls are manufactured in the territory from 95% cotton, 5% spandex fiber classified in heading 5506, HTSUS.
The CBP regulations applicable to the PTPA are contained in 19 CFR § 10.901 to § 10.934. Section 10.926 specifically addresses “Verification and justification of claim for preferential tariff treatment.” With regard to a verification of a claim that goods originate under a trade agreement, the regulation references different methods of how CBP may conduct a verification, including written requests for information. In the case of the entries at issue, the Apparel, Footwear and Textile Center of Excellence & Expertise (the “Center”) issued a Request for Information (CBP Form 28) requesting additional information and documentation. It wasn’t until after the Center issued a Notice of Action (CBP Form 29), that Lucky provided the requested information. The Center denied the PTPA claims because the Center found the documentation submitted in response to their request was deficient to support the claims.
In reviewing documents submitted to support a claim for preferential tariff treatment for purposes of PTPA, we consider the guidance issued to CBP field personnel and the importing community by CBP Headquarter offices in the form of memorandum and Textile Book Transmittals (“TBT”). This guidance includes TBT-07-019, “Documents Used to Verify Free Trade Agreement and Legislated Trade Program Claims for Textiles and Wearing Apparel,” which was issued by the Executive Director, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade on October 10, 2007; and TBT-11-004, “Additional Documents Used to Verify Free Trade Agreement and Legislated Program Claims for Textiles and Wearing Apparel,” which was issued by the Executive Director, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade on March 31, 2011. See, e.g., Headquarter Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301722, dated May 21, 2019; HQ H185798, dated August 16, 2013; and HQ H217821, dated June 23, 2012 (relying on TBTs to determine whether documents provided by an importer support a claim for preferential tariff treatment under a preferential trade program). According to TBT-07-019, when a trade agreement requires the use of yarn or fabric that originates in the territory of the parties, importers must be able to provide certain documents to support the claim for preferential tariff treatment:
When requested by CBP, the primary documents importers must submit to confirm each raw material source are indicated below.
The following requirements hold whether U.S. materials or regional materials are used:
An affidavit completed by a party having direct knowledge of the yarn or fabric formation is necessary to substantiate the origin claim.
a. Such an affidavit (or declaration) should identify the factory that produced the yarn or fabric, giving the full name and address.
. . .
Affidavits will not be accepted from converters or dyers who are not responsible for the actual production of the yarn or fabric.
The affidavit should have a description of the goods, such as fiber content, yarn count and fabric type, as well as some identifying characteristics, such as an invoice or order number.
. . .
Documents to Support Claims Involving Agreements/Groupings Requiring Regional Yarn or Fabric
Records demonstrating that a party to the transaction sourced regionally formed yarn, fabric, or cut or knit-to-shape components clearly dedicated to the final imported merchandise. Such records include purchase orders, invoices, delivery notices, etc. These documents should demonstrate a direct correlation of the materials or components to the finished good by way of style numbers, fabric type and construction, or other means.
Transportation and export records (e.g., bills of lading) from the regional country of origin of the yarn or fabric to the regional country of final production.
Entry documents showing movement of the inputs into the regional country of final production.
Documents showing movement and delivery of inputs within the regional country of final production.
Men’s trousers of cotton
For this entry, the trousers would meet the tariff shift rule above if the yarn used to make the trousers were formed in Peru, the United States, or both. To support the assertion that the trousers do meet the tariff shift rule, Lucky provided affidavits from a fabric producer, sewing thread producer and Rocio Quispe Clemente, the actual producer of the trousers classified under subheading 6203.42, HTSUS. The fabric producer’s statement states that the fabric was produced in Peru but does not state the origin of the yarn used to produce the fabric. If, as Lucky claims, the yarn used to produce the fabric was spun from cotton and spandex fiber within the territory, then the garments would meet the tariff shift requirement. However, Lucky has not provided any documentation regarding the origin of the yarn, and therefore, has not demonstrated that the goods meet the tariff shift requirement.
We also note that the thread supplier provided a statement of origin indicating that the thread was produced in Peru but did not include the filament source, production records, or commercial records related to the purchase of the filament. Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 62, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” Therefore, we find that Lucky has not demonstrated that the trousers meet the requirement of Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 62, GN 32(n).
Additionally, Lucky provided no documentation to determine whether the trousers meet GN 32(n) 62, Chapter rule 5, which requires pocket bag fabric to be “formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both from yarn wholly formed in Peru, the United States, or both.” Therefore, we find that the subject trousers do not qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
Women’s bib and brace overalls of cotton
Regarding the entry of women’s cotton bib and brace overalls classified in subheading 6204.62, HTSUS, Lucky provided CBP with an excel spreadsheet that includes a flow chart, a list of fabric suppliers, a list of purchase orders from Lucky to Peru Cotton and their details, a list of transportation providers and payment information, and a list of style numbers and unit costs. However, no documentary evidence, such as actual purchase orders, invoices or payment records were provided. Therefore, we find that Lucky did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the subject overalls qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
Women’s dresses of cotton
Again, for the women’s cotton dresses to meet the tariff shift rule for garments of subheading 6204.42, HTSUS, the yarn used to make the dresses would have to be formed in Peru, the United States, or both. To support the claim that the women’s cotton dresses do originate under PTPA, Lucky provided an affidavit stating that the fabric was produced in Peru by Textil Vivanco Garcia E.I.R.L. from cotton yarn produced in the United States. However, Peru Textil Vivanco Garcia E.I.R.L. is not the producer of the yarn and, according to TBT-07-019, “Affidavits will not be accepted from converters or dyers who are not responsible for the actual production of the yarn or fabric.” Further, Lucky did not provide any transportation documents, export records, or entry documents of U.S. yarn into Peru, as is required by TBT 07-019. Additionally, while the certification of origin for the fabric does state the invoice numbers of the fabric it is certifying origin for, those invoices were not provided. Lucky also did not provide any purchase orders, invoices, transport records, production records, or proofs of payment for the fabric or yarn. Therefore, this affidavit does not provide any support for the claim that the dress fabric is produced from yarn originating in the United States, which would demonstrate that the garments meet to tariff classification shift from cotton fiber of heading 5201, HTSUS to dresses of subheading 6204.42, HTSUS.
The thread supplier provided a statement of origin indicating that the thread was produced in Peru, but did not include the filament source, production records, or commercial records related to the purchase of the filament. Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 62, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” We also note that Peru Cotton subcontracted services to Gladys Saavedra Atoche, but the purchase order was not translated fully to ascertain what services were provided. Therefore, we find that Lucky did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the subject dresses qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
Women’s shorts of cotton
This entry includes women’s cotton shorts of subheading 6204.62, HTSUS. The documents provided for this entry do not cover important steps in the production process. Peru Cotton outsources the fabric cutting process, but did not provide production reports, nor did the cutting service provider substantiate the fabric used in production. Peru Cotton paid “Escobar Chancha Janet Vanessa” $156.25, but no documentation indicates what goods or service was received in exchange for this payment. Additionally, the thread producer, Espinoza Vilca Jean Bryan, created and signed a “Mfg. Affidavit of Origin” with no production support documentation. Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 62, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” Therefore, we find that Lucky has not demonstrated that the women’s shorts meet the requirement of Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 62, GN 32(n).
Again, the yarn used to make the women’s shorts would have to be formed in Peru, the United States, or both for the garments to meet the tariff shift rule for these garments. Lucky provided an affidavit from the fabric manufacturer, Textil Vianny SAC, stating that Textil Vianny SAC “knitted” the fabric in Peru “[f]rom yarn wholly formed in Peru or the U.S.,” but provided no indication exactly where or by whom the yarn was produced as is required by TBT 07-019. Further, Textil Vianny SAC is not the producer of the yarn, and therefore, is not an acceptable affiant to provide supporting evidence that the yarn is wholly formed in the United States or Peru. Lucky also did not provide any transportation documents or commercial records for the yarn or cotton used to produce the yarn. We also note that the affidavit states that the fabric sold to Peru Cotton was 100% cotton fabric, but the production records and invoices state that the shorts are of 95% cotton, 5% spandex fabric. Therefore, we find that Lucky has not supported the claim that the dresses were produced in the territory.
Additionally, Lucky provided no documentation to determine whether the shorts meet GN 32(n) 62, Chapter rule 5, which requires pocket bag fabric to be “formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both from yarn wholly formed in Peru, the United States, or both.” Since Lucky did not provide any additional evidence that the garments met that tariff shift rule or that the pocket bag fabric originated in the United States or Peru, we find that Lucky did not provide sufficient support for the claim that the subject shorts qualify for preferential tariff treatment under PTPA.
Men’s shorts
This entry includes men’s shorts of synthetic fiber of subheading 6103.43, HTSUS. The purchase order from Lucky to Peru Cotton requests 100% polyester knitted shorts for men. The purchase order from Peru Cotton to the fabric manufacturer, Texfina, requests “dry” but does not discern whether the fabric is manmade or cotton. The manufacturer’s invoice and affidavit of origin also indicate that the fabric is “dry” but not whether it is manmade, or cotton. Further Texfina’s affidavit states that the fabric was “knitted in Peru” at the Texfina facility “[f]rom yarn wholly formed in Peru or the U.S.” If this were true, Lucky would be able to state that the goods met the tariff shift requirement as the goods would have been processed into garments classified in subheading 6103.43, HTSUS, from synthetic fibers of heading 5506, HTSUS. However, Lucky did not provide any indication of where or by whom the yarn was produced as is required by TBT 07-019. Lucky also did not provide any transportation documents or commercial records for the yarn or fiber used to produce the yarn. Nor did Lucky provide any record of the fabric that was used by the entity subcontracted to perform the cutting operations. Therefore, we find that Lucky did not provide sufficient information to support the claim that the subject shorts were produced from fiber of heading 5506, HTSUS, in the territory.
The thread supplier provided a statement of origin indicating that the thread was produced in Peru but did not include the filament source, production records, or commercial records related to the purchase of the filament. Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 61, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” Therefore, we find that Lucky has not demonstrated that the subject shorts qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
Women’s cotton knit dresses
Lucky claims that the cotton knit dresses of subheading 6104.42, HTSUS, are entitled to preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA because they are produced from yarn that was formed in the territory. To support the claim that the women’s cotton knit dresses originate under PTPA, Lucky provided a manufacturer’s affidavit says that the fabric used to produce the dresses was cotton-lycra fabric produced in Peru from U.S. cotton. However, the affidavit is silent on the origin of the synthetic lycra fibers and Lucky did not provide any records regarding the lycra or where the lycra and cotton were spun into yarn. Additionally, Lucky did not provide any transportation documents or commercial records for the yarn and large portions of the documents remain untranslated. Therefore, we find that Lucky did not provide sufficient information to support the claim that the subject dresses are produced within the territory.
The thread supplier provided a statement of origin indicating that the thread was produced in Peru but did not include the filament source, production records, or commercial records related to the purchase of the filament. Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 61, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” Therefore, we find that Lucky has not demonstrated that the subject dresses qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
Men’s knitted t-shirts
Regarding the men’s knitted t-shirts of other textile materials classified in subheading 6109.90, HTSUS, the purchase order and invoice for fabric between Peru Cotton and Texfina states “DRY” fabric and does not discern if the fabric is manmade or cotton. Peru Cotton outsourced the cutting and sewing operations but did not provide a record of the fabric used by the cutting service or of thread used by sewing services. The statement from the fabric manufacturer, Texfina, states that the fabric was “knitted in Peru from yarn wholly formed in Peru or the United States.” If this were true, then the t-shirts would meet the requirement that the garments be produced from yarn formed in Peru, the United States, or both. However, while the affidavit states that the fabric was produced in the affiant’s facility, it makes no mention as to where the yarn was produced. Additionally, Lucky provides no documentation for production of fabric, nor does it state whether the fabric is of manmade materials or of cotton. Lucky also did not provide any documentation on the origin of the yarn or any documentation on the production of the yarn. Therefore, we find that Lucky did not provide sufficient information to support the claim that the subject men’s t-shirts are produced within the territory.
The thread supplier, D’Argo provided a statement of origin indicating that the thread was produced in Peru but did not include the filament source, production records, or commercial records related to the purchase of the filament. Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 61, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” Therefore, we find that Lucky has not demonstrated that the subject men’s t-shirts qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
Women’s knitted t-shirts
For the women’s t-shirts, knitted or crocheted of other textile materials of subheading 6109.90, HTSUS, Peru Cotton outsourced the fabric cutting and sewing, but the apparel specification sheets and the production orders by Peru Cotton do not state the location of production. The statement from the fabric manufacturer, Textil San Ramon, states that the fabric was “wholly formed in Peru” but provides no documentation for production of the yarn used to form the fabric. For the women’s t-shirts to meet the tariff shift requirement for goods of subheading 6109.90, HTSUS, the yarn would have had to have been formed in Peru, the United States, or both. Additionally, Lucky did not provide any record demonstrating what fabric was used by the cutting service. Therefore, we find that Lucky has not demonstrated a direct correlation of the materials, which Lucky claims is viscose and spandex fiber classified in heading 5506, HTSUS, to the finished women’s t-shirts.
Furthermore, Chapter Rule 4 of Chapter 61, GN 32(n) states, “a good of this chapter containing sewing thread of heading 5204 [cotton sewing thread] or 5401 [synthetic fiber sewing thread] shall be considered originating only if such sewing thread is both formed and finished in the territory of Peru, the United States, or both.” The documents Lucky provided indicate that Alarcotex supplied polyester sewing thread to the sewing subcontractor, Cotton Mass by Gludy Soledad Ventocilla Yaury (“Cotton Mass”). Lucky provided a statement from the sewing subcontractor, Cotton Mass, which stated that the yarn was fully formed in Peru and was marketed by Alarcotex. However, Alarcotex’s invoice to Cotton Mass states that Alarcotex is an importer and distributor of thread, not a producer and Cotton Mass is not an appropriate affiant, as Cotton Mass was not the producer of the yarn, which is required by TBT-07-019. Since Lucky did not provide any evidence to where or by whom the thread was produced, Lucky has not demonstrated that the sewing thread is formed and finished in the territory. Therefore, Lucky has not demonstrated that the women’s t-shirts are entitled to preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA.
HOLDING:
This protest should be DENIED. This office has reviewed the documents submitted with the protest and finds that the documentation submitted during the verification to be insufficient to support a claim for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA for any of the examined entries.
You are instructed to notify the importer, through the importer’s counsel, of this decision no later than 60 days from the date of this decision. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to this notification. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel and the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (“CROSS”) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/, or other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
Yuliya A. Gulis, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division