HQ 960448

May 9, 1997

CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 960448 jb

CATEGORY: Classification

Jonathan M. Fee, Esq.

Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, LLP

1201 West Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4860

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

RE: Request to set aside denial of Application for Further

Review, Protest No.1001-97- 101695; 19 U.S.C. 1515(c); 19 CFR

174.24

Dear Mr. Fee:

This ruling is in response to your request of April 24,

1997, on behalf of your client, American & Efird, Inc., for

Customs to set aside the denial of your Application for Further

Review (AFR) and to void the denial of the protest, Protest No.

1001-97-101695. Your request for review is under the authority

of 19 U.S.C. 1515(c) which provides, in part, as follows:

If a protesting party believes that an application for

further review

was erroneously or improperly denied or was denied without

authority for

such action, it may file with the Commissioner of Customs a

written request

that the denial of the application for further review be set

aside. Such request

must be filed within 60 days after the date of the notice of

the denial. The

Commissioner of Customs may review such request and, based

solely on the

information before the Customs Service at the time the

application for further

review was denied, may set aside the denial of the application

for further review

and void the denial of the protest, if appropriate.

The protest at issue involves the country of origin of sewing

thread. The manufacturing operations for the subject sewing thread

include single yarns being spun in China and then subjecting the

yarns to a twisting process and further dyeing and finishing

operations in Israel. Customs determined that the processing

operations in Israel did not confer origin and that consequently,

the country of origin of the sewing thread was China.

A timely protest was filed on behalf of your client asserting

that the proper country of origin for the subject sewing thread is

Israel and that the sewing thread qualified for duty free treatment

under the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation

Act. A memorandum stating the reasons for the protest and

application for further review was attached to the Customs Form

(CF) 19, Protest form.

On March 28, 1997, the subject AFR was denied. The attachment

to the CF 19 stated that the AFR was denied upon the basis of 19

CFR 174.24(b) which states that further review will be granted when

the decision against which the protest was filed \"is alleged to

involve questions of law of fact which have not been ruled upon by

the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs

courts\". Customs determined that no new issues of law or fact were

presented.

We initially note that your request under section 1515(c) was

timely filed. The notice of denial of the AFR was dated March 28,

1997, and Customs received your request that it be set aside on

April 24, 1997. Therefore, your request was filed within 60 days

after the date of the notice of denial.

The criteria required for the granting of a request for

further review are set forth in 19 CFR 174.24 of the Customs

Regulations. This section states, in pertinent part, that further

review will be accorded to:

. . . a party filing an application for further review

which meets the

requirements of \[section\] 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 in any district

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 \[section\] 177.11(b)(5) of this

chapter.

In your request, you submit that the AFR should have been

granted as it meets the requirements set out in 19 CFR 174.24 (a),

\(b\) and (c). After review of the protest application with

attached memorandum, we do agree that the AFR was improperly denied

as the submitted protest does contain justification for granting

Further Review under the criteria in 19 CFR 174.24. There appear

to be questions of fact which have not previously been considered.

In conclusion your request for relief under 19 U.S.C. 1515(c)

is approved and the denial of the AFR by the Port Director is put

aside. We are by copy of this letter requesting the port to

forward the subject protest/AFR file to this office, along with

their comments, for our action.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Tariff Classification Appeals

Division