10 newer rulings cite the same tariff codes.
Classification can shift over time. Review the more recent rulings below before relying on this one.
Request to Void Denial of Protest No. 1001-00-102703 Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1515(d)
Issued June 20, 2001 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Cite this ruling
Copies to clipboard54 547927 (June 20, 2001)
Tariff classification
Product description
Request to Void Denial of Protest No. 1001-00-102703 Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1515(d)
Full text
HQ 547927 June 20, 2001 RR:IT:VA 547927 DCC CATEGORY: VALUATION David M. Murphy Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP 245 Park Avenue New York, New York 10167-3397 RE: Request to Void Denial of Protest No. 1001-00-102703 Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1515(d) Dear Mr. Murphy: This is in response to your letters dated March 13, April 23 and May 18, 2001, in which you request the Customs Service void the partial denial of Protest No. 1001-00-102703, filed by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman on behalf of Judy Philippine, Inc. (“Judy Philippine”). You filed ten protests concerning the appraisal of wearing apparel from Taiwan, all of which involve the same issues of law and fact. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HRL”) 547850, we determined that Protest No. 1001-00-102703 should be granted in part and denied in part. We ruled that because the subject merchandise was imported pursuant to an incomplete sale, transaction value was an inappropriate basis for valuation. We further determined that the appropriate basis of valuation was the value of identical or similar merchandise. In your April 23, 2001, letter you state that, “Misunderstanding of [HRL 547850’s] directions has lead to the erroneous denial in full of several protests." You further claim that in some cases, the entries were liquidated on the basis of the incomplete sale between Jefftex International and Judy Philippine. After receiving your letter dated March 13, 2001, we verified that the merchandise covered by Protest No. 1001-00-102703 was appraised on the basis of identical or similar merchandise imported from Taiwan at or about the same time as the subject merchandise. We did not, however, verify the basis of appraisal with regard to the nine other protests. Based on our review of the facts of this case, we determine that the port properly appraised the merchandise, which was the subject of Protest No. 1001-00-102703, pursuant to our instructions in HRL 547850. Therefore, we deny your request to void the partial denial of Protest No. 1001-00-102703. Sincerely, Sandra L. Bell, Director International Trade Compliance Division
Ruling history
More rulings on the same tariff codes
RE: The eligibility for preferential treatment under the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (UKFTA) of a nut spread from Korea
RE: Decorative Insulated Glass; Transaction Value
Request for Reconsideration of NY N348053; Cream of Tartar; 9802.00.50
Coastwise Trade; Passengers; Bareboat Charter Agreement; 46 U.S.C. §§ 55102 and 55103.
The country of origin of ICR 1001
Country of origin marking of Smart Glasses; Section 301
The country of origin of a silicon wafer
The country of origin of a battery cable
The country of origin of a banknote sorting machine
The country of origin of a mass air flow sensor
Follow 547927
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.