Protest AFR No. 3901-05-100254

HQ 967765 June 10, 2005 CLA-2-RR:CR:GC 967765 IOR Port Director Customs and Border Protection 610 Canal St. Chicago, IL 60607 Attn: Macie Robinson, I.S. Re: Protest AFR No. 3901-05-100254 Dear Port Director: We are returning the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) and Protest 3901-05-100254 for your action. We find that the criteria for further review was not met as further explained below. The protest is against the classification, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), of certain merchandise upon liquidation of the subject entry. The entry was liquidated on January 21, 2005, and this protest was timely filed on March 3, 2005. In the “Application for Further Review” portion of the CF 19, specifically Block 15 in this case, on a continuation sheet, the basis for further review simply recites the applicable Code of Federal Regulations sections, 19 CFR 174.24 and 174.25, and no basis for the application for further review is stated. No basis is stated elsewhere in the protest. The protestant’s AFR does not meet the requirements set forth in the applicable regulations, section 174.24 (19 C.F.R. 174.24), which provide: Further review of a protest which would otherwise by denied by the port director shall be accorded a party filing an application for further review which meets the requirements of § 174.25 when the decision against which the protest was filed: (a) Is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee, or with a decision made at any port with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise; (b) Is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts; (c) Involves matters previously ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts but facts are alleged or legal arguments presented which were not considered at the time of the original ruling; or (d) is alleged to involve questions which the Headquarters Office, United States Customs Service, refused to consider in the form of a request for internal advice pursuant to § 177.11(b)(5) of this chapter. Further review will be accorded to a party filing an AFR which meets the requirements of section 174.25 and at least one of the criterion in section 174.24. In the subject protest, the AFR was approved notwithstanding the fact the protestant has not alleged any of the conditions required in section 174.24 with regard to the decision protested. Consequently, the criteria for further review have not been met and therefore, we are returning the protest to you for your disposition. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please call Ieva O’Rourke, of my staff at 202-572-8803. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial Rulings Division Enc.