10 newer rulings cite the same tariff codes.
Classification can shift over time. Review the more recent rulings below before relying on this one.
Vessel Repair; Protest; Vessel MYSTIQUE; Vessel Repair Entry No. 534-1114802-5; Protest No. 25019-000115
Issued July 25, 1991 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Cite this ruling
Copies to clipboard11 111541 (July 25, 1991)
Tariff classification
Product description
The vessel repair entry at issue was liquidated on September 29, 1989. The Protest at issue was filed with Customs on December 29, 1989.
CBP rationale
Time limits exist for the submission of a protest and are established under the specific authority of the protest statute itself (19 U.S.C. 1514). As most recently established in the matter of Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 1463, (C.I.T. 1989), the 90-day statutory filing deadline is paramount to the merits of a particular case. In this case, the Protest was filed with Customs 91 days after liquidation of the entry. Having failed to meet the filing deadline in 1514, this matter may not be administratively considered further.
Full text
HQ 111541 July 25, 1991 VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111541 LLB CATEGORY: Carriers Chief, Technical Branch Commercial Operations Pacific Operations One World Trade Center Long Beach, California 90831 RE: Vessel Repair; Protest; Vessel MYSTIQUE; Vessel Repair Entry No. 534-1114802-5; Protest No. 25019-000115 Dear Sir: Reference is made to your memorandum of February 20, 1991, which forwards for our consideration the Protest filed on behalf of White Water Enterprises. The submission protests the liquidation of an entry totalling $1,800.00 in duty. FACTS: The vessel repair entry at issue was liquidated on September 29, 1989. The Protest at issue was filed with Customs on December 29, 1989. ISSUE: Whether the documents presented for consideration constitute a valid Protest which must be considered on the merits. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Time limits exist for the submission of a protest and are established under the specific authority of the protest statute itself (19 U.S.C. 1514). As most recently established in the matter of Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 1463, (C.I.T. 1989), the 90-day statutory filing deadline is paramount to the merits of a particular case. In this case, the Protest was filed with Customs 91 days after liquidation of the entry. Having failed to meet the filing deadline in 1514, this matter may not be administratively considered further. HOLDING: The protest which is the subject of this ruling, having been untimely filed, is denied. Sincerely, B. James Fritz Chief Carrier Rulings Branch
More rulings on the same tariff codes
RE: The country of origin marking of yoga mats
Country of Origin Marking; USMCA; Unassembled Cargo Container
The country of origin marking of breast pump kits
Country of Origin of Electric Foldable Bicycles
Country of Origin; Finished Leather
Dutiability of License Fees for Software as a Service in Imported Vehicles
The country of origin of a jute and cotton bag
Applicability of subheading 9811.00.60 to wearing apparel from China
The country of origin of drains, a connector, and an evacuator
The country of origin of an IV administration set and an IV extension set
Follow 111541
Get an email if this ruling is revoked or modified, or a newer ruling supersedes it.
One email per day at most. Confirm your address once, unsubscribe anytime.
Searching CBP rulings the smart way
Rulings are precedent. See which ones apply to your product: TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.