CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 950877 KCC
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
101 East Main Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
RE: Applications for Further Review of Protest Nos. 1401-91-
100053, 1401-91-100058, 1401-91-100077 under 19 U.S.C.
1514(c)(2); Glassware; specially tempered
Dear Sir:
This is in response to the Application for Further Review of
Protest Nos. 1401-91-100053 dated April 19, 1991, 1401-91-100058
dated April 19, 1991, and 1401-91-100077 dated May 1, 1991, which
pertain to the classification of glassware under heading 7013,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Numerous Custom Laboratory Reports were also forwarded to this
office for examination. We have considered the protests and our
decision follows.
Protestant's request for further review may be summarily
disposed of. The scope of review in this protest is on the
administrative record, and protestant has not presented any
evidence in support of its assertions. The Customs Service will
not grant further review of a blanket protest. Protestant,
Lancaster Colony Commercial Products, 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., 514 F.2d 1052, 62
C.C.P.A. 76 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United States, 173
F. Supp. 812 (Cust. Ct. 1959); United States v. E. H. Bailey Co.,
32 C.C.P.A. 89 (1945).
In the instant case, protestant simply asserts in its
protests that the entries were liquidated with an increase due to
the fact that U.S. Customs felt that the glassware was not
actually tempered. The protestant than asserted that Customs
Laboratory Reports indicate that certain tests have had
questionable results, and then the protestant requested time to
submit follow-up information to verify that the glassware was
tempered. As of December 18, 1991, when the protests were
forwarded for further review, no information had been submitted
to support protestants assertions that the glassware was
tempered, and, therefore, eligible for a lower duty rate under
the HTSUS.
Section 174.13(a)(6) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR
174.13(a)(6), requires that a protest set forth the nature of,
and justification for the objection set forth distinctly and
specifically with respect to each claim. 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 as is the case here (e.g., an unsubstantiated claim
that the glassware is tempered).
Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, the above
referenced protests should be denied in full. A copy of this
decision should be attached to Customs Form 19 and provided to
the protestant as part of the Notice of Action on the protest.
In the future, to assist in the processing of protests,
please designate and forward to Headquarters only the "lead"
protest. The remaining protests on the same issue should be held
and, thereafter, dispensed with according to the determination in
the "lead" protest.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division