CLA-2 R:C:M 957650 JAS
RE: PRD 1303-94-100253; Parts of Machines for Working Rubber or
Plastics or for the Manufacture of Products From These
Materials; Parts of Machine Tools for Working Hard Rubber,
Hard Plastics or Similar Hard Materials; Denial of Protest
for Failure to Provide Evidence in Support of Claim, 19 CFR
174.13(a)(6)
Dear District Director:
This is our decision on Protest No. 1303-94-100253, filed
against your classification of certain machine parts. The entry
under protest was liquidated on August 5, 1994, and this protest
timely filed on September 1, 1994.
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). The scope of review in a protest filed
under 19 U.S.C. 1514 is limited to the administrative record. In
acting on a protest, however, 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 classify the machine parts in subheading 8466.93.90,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as parts
and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the
machines of headings 8456 to 8465. However, protestant has
submitted no evidence in support of the claim under subheading
8477.90.80, HTSUS. While parts suitable for use solely or
principally with blow molding machines are classifiable in
subheading 8477.90, HTSUS, as claimed by protestant, this
classification is subject to the exclusions in Note 1 of Section
XVI, and to other exclusions in the legal notes of Chapter 84,
HTSUS.
- 2 -
We are unable to determine from the commercial invoice which
accompanies this protest whether any of the parts may be within
these exclusionary notes. There is no other evidence in the
protest file from which we can independently assess the validity
of protestant's claim. The protest is therefore DENIED based on
protestant's failure to comply with the requirements of 19 CFR
174.13(a)(6).
In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, you should mail this decision, together with the
Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the
date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries
in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to
mailing the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision
the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the
decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings
Module in ACS and to the public via the Diskette Subscription
Service, the Freedom of Information Act and other public access
channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division