HQ W231595

May 19, 2008

OT:RR:CTF:ER LIQ-15 HQ W231595 ECD

Mr. Robert Blanchard

Assistant Port Director, Trade

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

198 West Service Road

Champlain, New York 12919

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 0712-06-100148:
Requirement for Country of Origin Certificate for Natural Gas
Importations from Canada Pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement

Dear Mr. Blanchard:

The following is our decision regarding the Application for Further
Review ("AFR") of Protest No. 0712-06-100148 (the "Protest") filed by
Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. ("Constellation Energy" or
"protestant"), which we received from your office on October 18, 2006.
We have completed our review of this protest and are returning to you
the protest and appropriate documents, which were forwarded for review.
We are also including directions for disposition of the protest, as
discussed below.

**FACTS:**

On April 4, 2006, Constellation Energy submitted a post-importation
refund claim, pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement
("NAFTA"), 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d), and 19 C.F.R. § 181.31, for a refund of
Merchandise Processing Fees ("MPF") paid on entries from Canada filed at
the Service Port of Champlain (the "Port"). The entries covered natural
gas imported via pipeline from April 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006.
Constellation Energy did not provide any NAFTA Certificates of Origin,
stating that it was unable to obtain them from its suppliers, but
requested that CBP waive the requirement pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §
181.22(d)(1)(i). The Port denied the claim on May 17, 2006. Some of the
entries were liquidated on August 11, 2006, and the rest were liquidated
on August 18, 2006.

On August 15, 2006, Constellation Energy filed a protest, objecting to
the rejection of its claim. It argued that that it was unable to obtain
certification that its natural gas is of Canadian origin from its
natural gas suppliers, because of the intangible nature of natural gas,
its manner of transportation, and because it is traded on in a secondary
market. Constellation Energy argues that certification should not be
required because most natural gas in the pipelines originated either
from Canada or the United States. Constellation Energy asserts that the
natural gas is "unquestionably NAFTA-qualifying"; therefore, MPF should
not be assessed on its imports of natural gas.

The following entries are listed in its Protest:

+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Entry No.      | Import Date    | Aggregate      | Liquidation     |
|                |                | Entry Date     | Date            |
|                | (mo./yr.)      |                |                 |
|                |                | (mo./day/yr.)  | (mo./day/yr.)   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx584   | 4/2005         | 10/3/2005      | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx592   | 5/2005         | 10/3/2005      | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx600   | 6/2005         | 10/3/2005      | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx618   | 7/2005         | 10/3/2005      | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx907   | 8/2005         | 10/3/2005      | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx949   | 9/2005         | 10/25/2005     | 8/11/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx012   | 10/2005        | 11/30/2005     | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx087   | 11/2005        | 12/20/2005     | 8/11/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx152   | 12/2005        | 1/23/2006      | 8/18/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx277   | 1/2006         | 2/22/2006      | 8/11/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 551-xxxxx350   | 2/2006         | 3/21/2006      | 8/11/2006       |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+

These entries are the same entries listed in the April 6, 2006,
post-importation NAFTA refund claim.

On September 19, 2006, the Port approved the application for further
review as a "no precedent issue."

According to Constellation Energy, there are three sectors in the
natural gas industry: the upstream sector, which covers the discovery
and initial stages of production of natural gas; the midstream sector,
which covers the processing of natural gas; and the downstream sector,
which covers the transportation and use of natural gas. Natural gas can
be distributed either via pipeline as a gas, or in tanks as liquefied
natural gas ("LNG"). Natural gas enters the pipeline either directly
from natural gas producers who have obtained the gas from wells, or is
injected into the pipeline from storage facilities, and from LNG
regasification facilities, or "peaking facilities." As explained in the
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy ("EIA")
June 2007 Report, "About Natural Gas Pipelines," the natural gas
industry uses underground natural gas storage and LNG peaking facilities
to meet surges in demand for natural gas in "climate-sensitive markets
such as the Midwest and Northeast" United States. EIA, "About Natural
Gas Pipelines" at 32-33, 41, 55 available at
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/fullversion.pdf>
(last visited May 16, 2008, printout in file).

The North American natural gas pipeline is not unidirectional; it is an
extensive network, extending from Mexico, through the United States, and
throughout Canada, and is referred to as a pipeline grid, through which
natural gas flows continuously, and includes the Champlain delivery
point. According to the EIA, natural gas flows in both directions along
various points along the United States and Canadian border, although it
is an import delivery point in Champlain, New York. [See]{.underline}
EIA Report, "Locations of U. S. Natural Gas Import & Export Points,
2008," available at
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/impex_list.html>
(accessed May 16, 2008, printout in file)("Natural Gas Import/Export
Locations List").

Ownership of the natural gas at any given point in the pipeline is
determined by contractual rights, which may be traded in a secondary
market and imported into the United States. Pipeline operators monitor
the flow of gas, and maintain records as to what parties have
contractual rights over the natural gas flowing through the pipeline at
a given time. Importers receive a report indicating the quantity of
natural gas, which is based on the amount of natural gas it requested be
delivered based on its contractual rights. Although the pipeline
operator may not know from whom the importer purchased the contractual
right to the natural gas, the importer knows from whom it purchased its
right to the natural gas.

Although some importers may be from the upstream or midstream sectors,
or importers that purchase natural gas directly from the natural gas
producers, all of which may be able to obtain NAFTA Certificates of
Origin, Constellation Energy purchases natural gas contractual rights
that are traded on the secondary market. According to Constellation
Energy, it purchases its natural gas rights from traders who do not
produce natural gas and those traders cannot certify the origin of the
natural gas they sell, because they have no records indicating the
origin of the gas. Furthermore, the contractual rights are traded
through many different parties, and NAFTA Certificates of Origin do not
travel with the natural gas rights purchased in a secondary market.

Constellation Energy admits that some of the natural gas in the general
pipeline pool of natural gas it purchases may have been imported from
the United States, and may be from a non-NAFTA country. As already
discussed, the natural gas pipeline grid allows natural gas to flow both
into and out of Canada. According to a search on the United States
International Trade Commission's DataWeb, "HTS -- 271121: Natural Gas,
Gaseous" available at
[http://dataweb.usitc.gov](http://dataweb.usitc.gov/) , in 2005 the
United States exported nearly \$3 billion of natural gas to Canada, and
in 2006 exported more than \$2 billion of natural gas to Canada. The
United States imported nearly \$27 billion in natural gas from Canada in
2005, and in 2006, it imported more than \$24 billion. Of that amount,
some may be regasified LNG.

The natural gas Constellation Energy purchased in Canada may have
originated from a non-NAFTA country in two ways: it may have been
exported as LNG and regasified into natural gas in Canada, or LNG could
have been imported into the United States, regasified and injected into
the pipeline, exported into Canada, and reimported into the United
States. According to a search on DataWeb, "HTS-271111: Natural Gas,
Liquefied", in 2005 the United States exported \$27,041,331 of LNG to
Canada, and in 2006, the United States exported only \$2,006,891. It is
unclear whether any non-NAFTA LNG was imported into Canada from the
United States; however, according to another EIA report, the United
States exported 60,938 million cubic feet of LNG in 2006, and 65,367
million cubic feet of LNG in 2005, and all of it was exported either to
Japan or to Mexico. EIA, Office of Oil and Gas, "U.S. Natural Gas
Imports and Exports: 2006" at Table SR8 (March 2008) available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2008/ngimpexp/ngimpexp.pdf
(last visited May 19, 2008, in file)("2005-2006 Natural Gas Export
Table"). Therefore, based on the information in the file, it is not
clear whether non-NAFTA LNG was exported into Canada, regasified,
injected into the pipeline, and ended up being imported as gas into the
United States.

Furthermore, although there are no LNG marine terminals in Canada, the
amount of LNG imports may soon increase dramatically: with the demand
for natural gas exceeding the supply, there are several proposed sites
for LNG marine terminals in Canada. One proposal is Rabaska, a project
to build an LNG marine and regasification terminal in Lévis, Québec,
Canada, less than 200 miles from Champlain, New York. Rabaska has
announced it has received all necessary government approvals to begin
construction, it anticipates receiving LNG tankers in 2014, and that it
intends to import LNG from Russia. [See]{.underline} Press Release,
"Gazprom US Based Subsidiary and Rabaska Reach Agreement; GMTUSA to
Subscribe for 100% of Capacity in North American LNG Terminal," (May 15,
2008), available at
<http://www.rabaska.net/docs/press-release_gazprom-rabaska_20080515.pdf>
(accessed May 16, 2008, in file).

The LNG the United States imported in 2005 and 2006 was primarily from
non-NAFTA countries. Another search of United States imports of LNG on
the DataWeb revealed that in 2005, the United States purchased more than
\$5 billion of LNG, from, in descending order, Trinidad & Tobago,
Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Qatar, Oman, Venezuela, and Mexico. In 2006,
the United States imported nearly \$4.6 billion of LNG from, in
descending order, Trinidad & Tobago, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Iraq,
Mexico, Venezuela, Norway, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Equitorial Guinea,
and Tunisia.

The location of LNG marine terminals in the United States increases the
likelihood of non-NAFTA natural gas entering the pipeline in Canada and
being imported or re-imported into the United States at the Champlain
delivery point. Of the five marine terminals in the United States that
import LNG, two are located in the Northeastern United States. One
terminal, Everett Marine Terminal, is operated by Distrigas of
Massachusetts LLC, which owns and operates the LNG import and
regasification facility in Everett, Massachusetts. It delivers
regasified LNG into, among other pipelines, the Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company. The Tennessee Gas Pipeline connects to the TransCanada Pipeline
Ltd pipeline at the Niagara Falls delivery point, and the Niagara Falls
delivery point operates as both an import and export point, although it
primarily imports natural gas. [See]{.underline} Natural Gas
Import/Export Locations List. The TransCanada Pipeline Ltd pipeline is
the Canadian pipeline that connects to the North Country Pipeline at the
Champlain delivery point. We note that no natural gas was exported from
Niagara Falls in 2005 or 2006; however, the information in the file does
not eliminate the possibility that regasified LNG entered the Canadian
pipeline grid via another export point, such as St. Clair, Michigan or
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and was imported into the United States
through Champlain. [See]{.underline} 2005-2006 Natural Gas Export Table.

**ISSUES:**

Whether the Port properly denied a request that it reliquidate entries
to refund MPF paid for imports of natural gas made via pipeline from
Canada, when the importer failed to provide copies of applicable NAFTA
Certificates of Origin or other certifications of origin, pursuant to 19
U.S.C. § 1520(d).

Whether the Port is required to grant a request that it waive the
requirement for a NAFTA Certificate of Origin or other certification,
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 181.22(d), when the importer alleges that the
nature of its merchandise should obviate the need for certification, but
the importer cannot provide verifiable certification that all of its
natural gas imports originated from Canada.

**LAW AND ANALYSIS:**

As an initial matter, Constellation Energy's Protest is timely, pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(B), because it was filed on August 15, 2006,
which is within 180 days of the date CBP denied the request for refund
of MPF, on May 17, 2006.

The Port properly granted the application for further review. Further
review is appropriate when the Port considers a protest should be
denied, but the protest involves issues that have not been the subject
of a CBP Headquarters ruling or a court decision. See 19 C.F.R. §
174.26(b)(1)(iv). In this Protest, no prior rulings or court decisions
have addressed the issue of whether the nature of merchandise could
render unnecessary any kind of certification as to the merchandise's
origin. Therefore, pursuant to 19 C.F.R § 174.26(b)(1)(iv), we are
addressing first, whether the Port properly denied a request to refund
MPF paid for imports that were uncertified as originating from Canada,
and second, whether the nature of the imports renders unnecessary any
requirement for a NAFTA Certificate of Origin.

**Part of the Request Was Properly Denied as Untimely**

Any post-importation refund request that concerns importations made more
than one year before the date of refund request must be denied as
untimely. The statute allows for post-importation requests for refunds
of duties and MPF, if the importer demonstrates that its imported
merchandise qualifies according to the rules of origin delineated by a
fair trade agreement and the importer files its request within one year
after the date of importation. [See]{.underline} 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d).
The statute states:

> \(d\) Goods qualifying under free trade agreement rules of origin
>
> Notwithstanding the fact that a valid protest was not filed, the
> Customs Service may, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
> Secretary, reliquidate an entry to refund any excess duties (including
> any merchandise processing fees) paid on a good qualifying under the
> rules of origin set out in section 3332 of this title, section 202 of
> the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, or
> section 4033 of this title for which no claim for preferential tariff
> treatment was made at the time of importation if the importer, within
> 1 year after the date of importation, files, in accordance with those
>
> regulations, a claim that includes---
>
> \(1\) a written declaration that the good qualified under the
> applicable rules at the time of importation;
>
> \(2\) copies of all applicable NAFTA Certificates of Origin (as
> defined in section 1508(b)(1) of this title), or other certificates or
> certifications of origin, as the case may be; and
>
> \(3\) such other documentation relating to the importation of the
> goods as the Customs Service may require.

[Id]{.underline}. The request Constellation Energy submitted was dated
April 4, 2006.

According to a prior CBP ruling, if a request includes imports made more
than one year prior to the date on its request, those entries may not be
refunded, even if there is an otherwise complete request for refund.
[See]{.underline} HQ 227990 (June 8, 2000). CBP Regulations permit the
aggregation of the ad valorem fee for daily importations of natural gas
into a monthly consolidated pipeline entry made at an individual port by
the same importer or exporter. [See]{.underline} 19 CFR § 24.23(d). In
this case, any imports of natural gas that were made on or before April
3, 2005, even as part of the consolidated monthly Entry No.
551-xxxxx584, may not be considered as part of this request, because
they were imported more than one year prior to the date Constellation
Energy made the request. However, as discussed in Ruling HQ 231489, the
consolidated monthly entry represents multiple releases or entries made
on a daily basis, so Entry No. 551-xxxxx584 will be considered for
purposes of this protest to the extent that it includes any releases
made on April 4, 2005 through April 30, 2005.

**Without Certification of Origin or an Existing Waiver, CBP Will Not
Refund MPF**

As discussed above, section 520(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the "Act")
allows for post-importation refund requests. [See]{.underline} 19 U.S.C.
§ 1520(d). The regulation for filing a post-importation refund claim
states that a Certificate of Origin is required for a post-importation
refund claim, unless the Port Director has waived that requirement:

> \(b\) Contents of claim. A post-importation claim for a refund shall
> be filed by presentation of the following:
>
> \(1\) A written declaration stating that the good qualified as an
> originating good at the time of importation and setting forth the
> number and date of the entry covering the good;
>
> \(2\) Subject to §181.22(d) of this part, a copy of each Certificate
> of Origin (see §181.11 of this part) pertaining to the good;

19 C.F.R. § 181.32(b)(1)-(2). The waiver provision cited in the
regulations states:

> \(d\) Certificate not required ---(1) General. Except as otherwise
> provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, an importer shall not be
> required to have a Certificate of Origin in his possession for:
>
> \(i\) An importation of a good for which the port director has in
> writing waived the requirement for a Certificate of Origin because the
> port director is otherwise satisfied that the good qualifies for
> preferential tariff treatment under the NAFTA;

19 C.F.R. § 181.22(d)(1)(i). Thus the statute states that a Certificate
of Origin is required in a NAFTA post-importation claim unless the
Certificate was waived, which is not the case here. Constellation Energy
does not claim that it has a Certificate of Origin; in fact, it admits
that it cannot provide a verifiable certification of origin of its
natural gas. Constellation Energy does not claim that it has obtained a
waiver of the Certificate of Origin requirement. Therefore,
Constellation Energy has not met the requirements of section 520(d) of
the Act, and its claim must be denied.

**The Absence of a** **Waiver Is Not An Abuse of Discretion**

The facts in this case demonstrate that the Port of Champlain's refusal
to waive the Certificate of Origin requirement, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §
181.22(d)(1)(i), was not an abuse of discretion. To waive means
voluntarily to give up a right or a claim. [See]{.underline} "Waive",
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4^th^ ed. 2000);
"Waiver" Webster's Third New International Dictionary for the English
Language Unabridged (1993). Thus, in giving port directors the authority
to voluntary relinquish a claim to demand that a Certificate of Origin
be in an importer's possession, the regulations allow Port Directors to
act or not as they deem proper. As a discretionary act, CBP Headquarters
is reluctant to overturn Port Directors' waiver decisions unless there
is a showing of an abuse of discretion. [See]{.underline} HQ 222609
(November 7, 1990). An abuse of discretion is a decision

> "Made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from
> established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis, such as an
> invidious discrimination against a particular race or group, or in
> Judge Learned Hand's words, on other 'considerations that Congress
> could not have intended to make relevant.'"

[Suwanee Steamship Co. v. United States]{.underline}, 435 F. Supp. 389,
395 (Cust. Ct. 1977)(quoting [Wong Wing Hang v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service]{.underline}, 360 F.2d 715, 719 (2d Cir. 1966)).

Congress provided a general description of what considerations it
considered relevant, when it created the Certificate of Origin
requirement in section 520(d) of the Act. [See]{.underline} 19 U.S.C. §
1520(d). In delegating authority to CBP to enforce the NAFTA country of
origin requirements, Congress stated that the "rules are essential to
ensure that the benefits of the NAFTA accrue primarily to North American
producers, and the Committee intents that the Customs Service vigorously
enforce them." S. Rep. 103-189 at 14 (Nov. 18, 1993); [see]{.underline}
[also]{.underline} [id]{.underline}. at 21 (tariffs on non-NAFTA
components to "create an incentive to use North American inputs and . .
. help guard against the establishment of export platforms in Mexico by
companies seeking to take advantage of NAFTA tariff preferences.").
Constellation Energy states that it cannot provide a "verifiable
Certificate of Origin for its entries," because of the way natural gas
is traded in a secondary market. It alleges that its treatment is
unfair, because it favors those that purchased natural gas on the
primary market, [i.e.]{.underline} only Canadian natural gas producers
and importers that purchase natural gas directly from Canadian producers
can obtain NAFTA Certificates of Origin. However, that inability
reflects a defect in the chain of trades in the secondary market, not an
impermissible basis for the Port's refusal to waive the requirement.
Congress intended for North American producers to obtain the benefit of
the NAFTA, and North American natural gas producers are benefiting from
the NAFTA. Therefore, the Port of Champlain's denial of the waiver was
based on considerations Congress considered relevant.

Overall import and export statistics do not support Constellation
Energy's argument that any non-NAFTA natural gas it imports must be
below de minimis, pursuant to General Note 12 ("GN 12") HTSUS.
[See]{.underline} GN 12 HTSUS (f)(i). GN 12(f) requires that "if the
transaction value is unacceptable . . . the value of all such
non-originating materials is not more than 7 percent of the total cost
of the good". Constellation Energy concedes that it is possible that
non-NAFTA-origin regasified LNG is intermingling with Canadian natural
gas, and is flowing into the United States. Constellation Energy argues,
however, that because Canada has no LNG terminals for receiving large
shipments of LNG, any natural gas that is non-NAFTA origin, according to
Constellation Energy, would be below de minimis. In this case, we have
no data as to what percentage of non-originating materials is included
in the natural gas the protestant imported, and thus Constellation
Energy's argument must fail. To claim that the value of non-NAFTA
originating goods is de minimis, the claimant must first know what
portion of its commingled merchandise is non-NAFTA originating, not what
percentage of overall imports into its country are non-NAFTA
originating. [See]{.underline}, [e.g]{.underline}. HQ 563310 (May 19,
2006). Constellation Energy cannot certify that the specific natural gas
rights it purchases covers natural gas that originated from Canada
Furthermore, there is a possibility that non-NAFTA regasified LNG is
flowing from the United States, into Canada, is sold in the secondary
market, and then imported into the United States. As discussed above,
two major LNG terminals are located on the east coast of the United
States, and at least one is injecting regasified LNG, or natural gas,
into the pipline grid, which flows into Canada. Thus, given the
possibility that non-NAFTA natural gas is in the North American pipeline
grid, and Constellation Energy may have imported it into the United
States; and that Constellation Energy does not know the country of
origin of the natural gas to which it purchased the rights, the Port did
not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the requirement for a
NAFTA Certificate of Origin for Constellation Energy's imports of
natural gas.

CBP Regulations permit an individual port to waive the requirement for a
NAFTA Certificate of Origin. Although circumstances could possibly exist
that would obviate the need for certification, Constellation Energy has
not provided such information to cause us to conclude that the Port of
Champlain abused its discretion in denying the waiver request. Because
the waiver is discretionary, Constellation Energy is not foreclosed from
requesting a waiver in the future from the Port of Champlain or any
other port, and our denial of Constellation Energy's claim with respect
to this particular waiver cannot be construed as an ultimate denial of
any waiver request it could make for future entries.

**This Ruling Constitutes Written Explanation for Denial of This Request
in This Case**

The regulations require a written explanation for the original denial of
the post-importation refund request; however, this ruling remedies any
failure to provide a written explanation. Specifically, CBP must provide
an explanation in writing, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 181.33(d), for the
reasons for denying a claim for a refund, and provide a statement
regarding the right to file a protest. In this case, the Port stamped
the letter "denied" and returned the letter, but did not provide an
explanation or a statement. The courts have held that in the absence of
consequential language, failure to meet a statutory deadline does not
lead to CBP being compelled to grant a protestant's request.
[See]{.underline} [Fujitsu Gen. Am. Inc. v. United States]{.underline},
283 F.3d 1364, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In this case, an absence of any
consequence to the failure to provide an explanation or a protest
statement, CBP is not required to set aside the denial of the refund.

Furthermore, the timely filing of the Protest, and the decision here,
demonstrate that Constellation Energy has suffered no prejudice as a
result of the original omission of an explanation. The courts have held
that CBP's procedural missteps are "harmless unless the errors are
'prejudicial to the party seeking to have the action declared invalid.'"
[Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. United States]{.underline}, 441 F. Supp. 2d
1275, 1287 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006). By forwarding this letter to
Constellation Energy, CBP is now providing a written explanation, which
Constellation Energy may appeal to the Court of International Trade.

**HOLDING:**

You are instructed to DENY the protest in full. The Port properly denied
the request for a post-importation refund of MPF for monthly entries of
natural gas, because the request with respect to some of the releases
was untimely, and for the rest of the releases, Constellation Energy
failed to obtain either a Certificate of Origin or a waiver of the
certification requirement. The refusal to waive the certificate was not
an abuse of discretion. Because the Port Director has the discretion to
waive the requirement of a Certificate of Origin, Constellation Energy
is free to request a waiver from the Port Director in the future.

This decision will result in the assessment of MPF, and any
reliquidation of the entries in accordance with the decision must be
accomplished prior to mailing of the decision, in accordance with
Section IV of the Customs Protest/ Petition Processing Handbook (CIS HB,
January 2002, pp. 18 and 21). You are to mail this decision, together
with CBP Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date
of this letter.

No later than 60 days from the date of this letter, Regulations and
Rulings of the Office of International Trade 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](http://www.cbp.gov/), by means of
the Freedom of Information Act, and by other means of public
distribution.

Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director

Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division