HQ H192698 April 25, 2013 OT:RR:CTF:ER H192698 CSO Ms. Bernadette Quirk Supervisory Import Specialist U.S. Customs and Border Protection 10 Causeway Street, Suite 603 Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1059 Dear Ms. Quirk: This letter is in response to the application for further review filed on behalf of Infinity Global Packaging Inc. (“IGP”) for protest number 0401-11-100150 and received by our office on November 10, 2011. FACTS IGP made six entries on July 29, 2010 for assorted sizes of polyethelene retail carrier bags with handles (plastic bags). The plastic bags were subject to antidumping duty order A-570-886 on polyethelene retail carrier bags from China. See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 48,201 (Aug. 9, 2004). In response to a CBP Form 29, Notice of Action, dated June 29, 2010, IGP submitted a certificate of non-reimbursement. The certificate of non-reimbursement included the typical statement of reimbursement language, which was as follows: Per 19 C.F.R. 252.55, I hereby certify that I, Infinity Global Packaging Inc., (have)/(have not) entered into any agreement or understanding for the payment or for the refunding to me, by the manufacturer, producer, seller or exporter of all or all or any part of the antidumping duties assessed upon the following importations of: commodities plastic bags from the country of China to include all entries made by this company which merchandise has been purchased on or after the date of publication of notice suspending liquidation in the Federal Register; or purchased before date of publication of notice suspending liquidation in the Federal Register, but exported on or after the date of final determination of sales at less than fair value. Further, I will advise you if any such agreement or understanding is reached in the future. Signature:__________________ The language included an option of circling the word “have” or “have not” to indicate whether the importer of record had received any kind of reimbursement for the antidumping duties. IGP submitted its statement of reimbursement with the word “have” circled. IGP alleges that it should have circled the word “have not” to indicate that it did not receive reimbursement and that circling the word “have” was a clerical error. Further, it provided the signed and sworn statement from the manufacturer, Shanghai Johnson Packaging Production Co., Ltd. stating that it did not reimburse IGP any antidumping duties. In IGP’s protest to the Port of Boston, it provided a signed and sworn statement by its employee who signed the statement of reimbursement on its behalf. The signed and sworn statement indicated that she mistakenly circled the word “have” instead of “have not” and that the company was not reimbursed. Additionally, IGP provided a signed and sworn statement from the manufacturer, Shanghai Johnson Packaging Production Co., Ltd. that it did not reimburse IGP any antidumping duties. ISSUE Whether IGP may correct its certificate of non-reimbursement when it files its protest. LAW AND ANALYSIS As an initial matter, we note that a claimant may protest whether it corrected its certificate of non-reimbursement pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2), (3), (5). In order for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to consider the merits of a protest, however, the protest must be filed within the statutory timeframe of 180 days. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3). IGP filed its protest on August 23, 2011, which is before the 180th day after the date of liquidation on May 20, 2011. Therefore, the protest is timely. CBP's regulations require that further review is only granted in certain circumstances. See 19 C.F.R. § 174.24. We find that IGP’s protest raises a question regarding whether a certificate of reimbursement may be amended at protest. This issue has not been the subject of a Headquarters ruling or court decision. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.24(b), 174.26(b)(1)(iv). Therefore, we will conduct our further review of the protest. IGP alleges that it mistakenly circled the wrong word on its certificate of non-reimbursement. Because importers may submit certificates of reimbursement at protest, it can also correct erroneous certificates of reimbursement at protest. Hence, because IGP corrected the certificate and showed that it was not reimbursed for antidumping duties, the doubling of antidumping duties is improper. Upon assessment of antidumping duties, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) requires that the importer provide a reimbursement certificate to CBP. If the importer has been reimbursed antidumping duties, or if a certificate is not provided, CBP must double the antidumping duties in accordance with the regulation. The requirement of a certificate of non-reimbursement, and the specific information and language required in the certificate, is set forth in the Commerce regulations at 19 C.F.R. § 351.402, which states: Certificate. The importer must file prior to liquidation a certificate in the following form with the appropriate District Director of Customs: I hereby certify that I (have) (have not) entered into any agreement or understanding for the payment or for the refunding to me, by the manufacturer, producer, seller, or exporter, of all or any part of the antidumping duties or countervailing duties assessed upon the following importations of (commodity) from (country); (List entry numbers) which have been purchased on or after (date of publication of antidumping notice suspending liquidation in the Federal Register) or purchased before (same date) but exported on or after (date of final determination of sales at less than fair value). IGP filed the certificates with the appropriate language, but mistakenly circled “(have)” instead of “(have not).” Commerce recently clarified that reimbursement certificates may be submitted in a CBP protest in order to rebut the presumption of reimbursement. See H074225 (Jan. 9, 2012) (stating that “on November 23, 2011, Commerce issued instructions to CBP explaining that CBP may accept a non-reimbursement certificate with a timely filed protest to rebut the presumption that the importer was reimbursed for duties”). Commerce's interpretation of its regulation is also found in recent public instructions. See, e.g., Message No. 1329307 (November 25, 2011). In the instant case, because IGP provided sufficient documentation with its protest to show that it mistakenly circled the wrong word on its certificate of non-reimbursement, it has rebutted the presumption that it was reimbursed. Therefore, because certificates may be filed at protest as per instructions from Commerce, it follows that previously filed certificates may be corrected at protest as well. Hence, the assessment of additional antidumping duties was improper. HOLDING You are instructed to GRANT the protest in full. You are to reliquidate the subject entries without the assessment of double antidumping duties and at the rate and amount of duties deposited at entry. Sixty days from the date of the decision Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division