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 follows.

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 question."

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.


Director, International
Trade Compliance Division