Application for further review of protest 1001-92-100591;invoicing discrepancies; 19 CFR 174.13, 174.28; HRL 545133

HQ 545294 August 23, 1993 VAL CO:R:C:V 545294 CRS CATEGORY: Valuation Area Director U.S. Customs Service J.F.K. Airport Area Building 178 Jamaica, NY 11430 RE: Application for further review of protest 1001-92-100591; invoicing discrepancies; 19 CFR 174.13, 174.28; HRL 545133 Dear Sir: This is in reply to your memorandum dated April 15, 1993, under cover of which you forwarded an application for further review of the protest referenced above, filed by Superb Custom Brokers, Inc., on behalf of Marx and Newman. FACTS: The protested merchandise consists of 1,698 pairs of women's shoes. Protestant has submitted three different invoices for the instant merchandise: the original invoice; a corrected version; and a third which protestant maintains is the invoice originally presented. The invoices reflect unit prices of $21.62, $15.50 and $20.12, respectively, per pair. A CF 28 (request for information) was sent to protestant on March 27, 1992; however, no response was received. Furthermore, several attempts were made to contact the protestant and its broker by telephone in order to obtain additional information concerning the discrepancy. Nevertheless, an explanation of the different invoices was never provided. ISSUE: The issue presented is whether the protested merchandise was correctly appraised. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Section 174.13, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13), states that protests shall set forth distinctly and specifically the justification for the objection. In addition, 19 CFR 174.28 provides in pertinent part: In determining whether to allow or deny a protest filed within the time allowed, a reviewing officer may consider...additional arguments submitted in writing by the protesting party with respect to any decision which is the subject of a valid protest at any time prior to disposition of the protest.... Despite several attempts by the import specialist at JFK Airport to contact the protestant and its broker, no explanation of the different invoice prices has been provided. Consequently, this office has no basis on which to evaluate protestant's contention that the original invoice was incorrect. Inasmuch as no evidence has been submitted in support of this protest, we have no alternative but to deny it. See also Headquarters Ruling Letter 545133 dated April 22, 1993. HOLDING: You are instructed to deny the protest in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 Notice of Action. Sincerely, John Durant, Director