HQ 559454

January 14, 1997

CLA-2 RR:TC:SM 559454 BLS

CATEGORY: Classification

U.S. Customs Service

District Director

477 Michigan Avenue

Room 200

Detroit, MI 48226

RE: Reconsideration of Application for Further Review of Protest

No. 3801-94-106710 concerning

the applicability of subheading 9801.00.10,

HTSUS, to Ford Taurus station wagons; detrimental reliance;

uniform

and established practice; 19 U.S.C. 1315(d); Peugeot

Motors; General

Note 3(d)

Dear Sir/Madame:

This is a request for reconsideration of a decision on an

Application for Further Review of the above-referenced protest

which was timely filed on behalf of Auto Enterprises, Inc.,

against your decision denying duty-free treatment under

subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, of Ford Taurus Station Wagons (1994

models). The subject merchandise was entered on March 29, 1994

through the port of Detroit and was liquidated on August 19,

1994\. In our decision dated June 29, 1995 (Headquarters Ruling

Letter (HRL) 558983), we directed that the protest be denied in

full.

FACTS:

The merchandise which is the subject of this protest

consists of 1994 Ford Taurus model vehicles imported from Canada.

Protestant submits that the vehicles were assembled in a U.S.

foreign trade zone (\"FTZ\") (assembly plant in Chicago, Illinois,

foreign trade subzone 22B) and then shipped directly from the FTZ

to Canada where they were used primarily as rental vehicles prior

to being imported into the U.S. Upon entry into the U.S., the

vehicles were classified under heading 8703, Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and assessed a duty rate

of 2.5 percent ad valorem.

\- 2 -

Protestant states that the vehicles entered into the

commerce of Canada in many cases as a result of purchases by

rental car companies for incorporation into their fleets.

Protestant further states that after a certain period of time

many of

these vehicles are then purchased by U.S. Department of

Transportation-licensed importers, such as Protestant, for

reimportation into the U.S. These vehicles are then serviced to

satisfy U.S. DOT standards and sold for use in the U.S. market.

ISSUES:

\(1\) Whether there is an established and uniform practice to

provide duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS,

to vehicles which are produced in an FTZ from U.S. and foreign

components, exported directly from the FTZ and then imported into

the U.S.

\(2\) Whether Protestant has substantiated its claim for

detrimental reliance.

\(3\) Whether the subject vehicles qualify for assessment of

duty based only on their applicable foreign value content, as

provided in General Note 3(d), HTSUS.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, provides for the free entry of

U.S. products that are exported and returned without having been

advanced in value or improved in condition by any means while

abroad, provided the documentary requirements of section 10.1,

Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. §10.1), are met. The courts have

held that, while some change in the condition of the product

while it is abroad is permissible, operations which either

advance the value or improve the condition of the exported

product render it ineligible for duty-free entry upon return to

the U.S. Border Brokerage Co., v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct.

50, C.D. 4052, 314 F. Supp. 788 (1970), appeal dismissed, 58 CCPA

165 (1970). Moreover, compliance with section 10.1(a) is

mandatory and a condition precedent to recovery unless compliance

has been waived or is impossible. Maple Leaf Petroleum, Ltd., v.

United States, 25 CCPA 5, T.D. 48976 (1937). The basis for

waiver of the required documentation is predicated upon the

district director being satisfied by the production of other

evidence as to the U.S.-origin of the merchandise and its

eligibility under subheading

\- 3 -

9801.00.10, HTSUS.

The sixth proviso to section 3 of the Foreign Trade Zone Act

(\"FTZA\") of June 18, 1934 (49 Stat. 9), as amended, states as

follows:

That articles produced or manufactured in a

zone

and exported therefrom shall on subsequent

importation into the customs territory of the

United States be subject to the import laws

applicable to like articles manufactured in a

foreign country, except that articles produced

or

manufactured in a zone exclusively with the use

of domestic merchandise, the identity of which

has

been maintained in accordance with the second

proviso of this section may, on such

importation,

be entered as American goods returned.

(Emphasis

added).

Customs addressed the issue concerning the dutiable status

of articles made with foreign components in a Foreign Trade Zone

that are imported after having been exported from the zone in

C.S.D. 95-3, 29 Cust. Bull. 11 (February 8, 1995). In this case,

automobiles were made in an FTZ using some parts of foreign

origin. Those parts were admitted into the zone in either

privileged foreign status or non-privileged foreign status.

After manufacture, the automobiles were exported to Canada

without any duty having been paid on those parts. After that

exportation, the automobiles were imported into the U.S. The

issue in C.S.D. 95-3 was whether the sixth proviso to section 3

of the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. §81c(a)) requires duty

to be assessed on the full value of an automobile made in a zone

with U.S. and foreign parts exported and then returned to the

U.S. In this decision, Customs held that the automobile is

dutiable on its full value at the appropriate most-favored nation

rate of duty on its importation back into the U.S. See also 19

CFR 146.67(e).

While in this reconsideration Protestant does not seek to

contest the holding in C.S.D. 95-3, it argues that the vehicles

should be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading

9801.00.10, HTSUS, when they are returned to the U.S., based on

the existence of an established and uniform practice and

detrimental reliance, and contests Customs denial of duty-free

treatment for the subject entries. In this regard,

\- 4

\-

Protestant further contends that Customs erred in HRL 558893 in

stating that its \"long-standing position\" has been that \"goods

which are produced in a FTZ from

both U.S. and foreign components are not considered products of

the U.S., unless duty has been paid on the value of the foreign

components when exported from the zone, or the good is comprised

wholly of domestic components or materials.\"

In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 553240 dated March 5,

1985, a truck was assembled in a foreign trade zone, using both

\"privileged domestic\" and \"privileged foreign parts.\" The truck

was withdrawn from the foreign trade zone on a weekly

formal entry covering the production of additional trucks.

Duties were paid on the assembled foreign merchandise having

privileged foreign zone status upon withdrawal of the truck from

the FTZ for domestic consumption during 1982. The truck was

subsequently exported to Germany and then returned to the U.S.

Customs held in HRL 553240 that since the truck was first

transferred to the Customs territory of the U.S., and duties were

paid on the foreign components, prior to being exported to

Germany, upon return to the U.S., the truck was eligible for

duty-free treatment under the American Goods Returned provision.

We concluded that the foreign merchandise used in the assembly of

the truck had lost its foreign character and was considered to

have been substantially transformed by being merged into the

assembled truck. \"The merger occurred in the FTZ located in the

U.S. and the substantial transformation was complete when the

truck was entered for consumption in the U.S. and duties paid on

the privileged foreign merchandise.\" We also stated that \"If the

truck had been exported to Germany from the zone without the

intervening transfer to the Customs territory, the truck would

have remained fully dutiable under the appropriate tariff

classification.\' (See also HRL 556976 dated June 9, 1994.)

Protestant contends that the facts in HRL 553240 are not

comparable to the present situation since the vehicle in that

case was not exported directly from a FTZ as in the instant case

but passed first through the customs territory. In addition,

Protestant argues that the \"dicta\" which Customs cites in support

of its claim of a long-standing position in this regard does not

explain how the appropriate classification would be determined,

nor does it consider that the country from which the goods are

imported, Canada in this case, may be different from the country

of origin of the foreign components in the vehicle.

\- 5

\-

We agree that the facts in HRL 553240 are not directly

analogous to the

circumstances presented in the instant case. However, since

Customs had ruled in HRL 553240 under circumstances in which a

vehicle of both foreign and U.S. parts were assembled in a zone

and transferred to the customs territory, the general statement

was made to cover the obvious situation not specifically

presented in the facts in that case, i.e., where a vehicle was

exported directly to the foreign country (and not transferred to

the customs territory) and returned. This statement did not

represent a new Customs position, but was made in the context of

HRL 553240 since it more fully represented Customs interpretation

of the sixth proviso to section 3 of the FTZA.

Accordingly, while this statement covered a situation not

directly related to the

factual situation in HRL 553240, we find that it clearly

represented Customs

position with regard to the dutiable status of an imported

article assembled in a FTZ from U.S. and foreign parts, and

exported directly from the zone to a foreign country without

transfer to the customs territory.

1\) Established and Uniform Practice

Protestant contends that Customs has failed to comply with

the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1315(d) which concerns the

effective date of administrative rulings resulting in higher

rates.

Section 1315(d)provides as follows:

No administrative ruling resulting in the

imposition of a higher rate of duty or

charge

than the Secretary of Treasury shall find

to

have been applicable to imported

merchandise

under an established and uniform practice

shall

be effective with respect to articles

entered

for consumption or withdrawn from

warehouse for

consumption prior to the expiration of thirty

days after the date of publication in the

Federal

Register of notice of such ruling; but

this

provision shall not apply with respect to

the

imposition of anti-dumping duties or the

\- 6 -

imposition of countervailing duties under

section

1303 of this title\.... (Emphasis added.)

Protestant contends that an established and uniform

practice, as defined in the case of Hereaus-Amersil v. United

States, 617 F. Supp. 89, 9 CIT 412 (1985), aff\'d, 795 F. 2d 1575,

existed in this case as the result of uniform liquidations over a

long period of time.

In Hereaus-Amersil, the court stated that the factors to be

considered in determining an established and uniform practice

are:

\...the number of entries resulting in the

alleged

uniform classifications, the number of ports at

which the merchandise was entered, the period

of

time over which the alleged uniform

classifications

took place, and whether there had been any

uncertainty regarding the classification over

its

history. In essence, the question is whether a

uniform and established practice existed that

would

lead an importer, in the absence of notice that

change in classification will occur, reasonably

to

expect adherence to the established

classification

practice when making an importation.

In that case, over 300 liquidations at two ports had

occurred over a 10-year period. The court held that the

importer was entitled to rely upon the continued classification

absent a published notice of a contemplated change in

classification practice pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1315(d).

Similarly, Protestant states that for 10 years, vehicles

produced in U.S. FTZs were imported duty-free under subheading

9801.00.10, HTSUS. In support of this claim, Protestant submits

in evidence lists of entries for vehicles imported through

various ports. These entries include the VIN numbers of the

vehicles. For example, Protestant states that this evidence

reflects that during the period January 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994,

it imported 1,157 vehicles produced in FTZs which were entered at

six different ports as U.S. goods returned. \[Evidence of FTZ

production is established by the VIN number, which shows the U.S.

facility where the vehicle was produced,

\- 7 -

the model year, (which may not be the year of production), and

other information

which reflects the sequence of production. Further inquiry of

the manufacturer or other reliable information is required to

establish that the U.S. facility was operating as a FTZ at the

time of production.\]

Protestant also points out that while FTZ production began

in 1985, it is difficult to quantify the exact number of vehicles

produced in a FTZ since the entries made under subheading

9801.00.10 do not distinguish between vehicles made in a FTZ and

those which were not produced in a zone. Further, Protestant

notes that a time gap exists in importations between 1989-1992,

because there was no economic incentive to import cars from

Canada during this period. \[We assume that in making this point

Protestant is distinguishing between entries made under

subheading 9801.00.10 that reflect the VIN number and those

entries that are incomplete or otherwise do not reflect the VIN

number.\]

Protestant also states that if the vehicles had not been

classified under

subheading 9801.00.10, then they would have been classified under

heading 8703

or 8704 of the HTSUS and the vehicles would have been subject to

a 2.5% duty or a 25% duty. Protestant argues that this change

in tariff classification constitutes a change in established and

uniform practice as defined by the court in Hereaus-Amersil.

Protestant\'s contention presupposes that Customs officers

allowing entry under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, during the

protest period, were aware of both the fact that the vehicles

were assembled in a FTZ and that they had not entered the customs

territory (with payment of duty) upon release from the zone prior

to exportation. In this regard, Protestant states that the VIN

number located on the frame of the vehicle reflected not only the

country of origin (primarily U.S.), but also the exact plant in

the U.S. which produced that vehicle. Protestant also submits in

evidence entries in which the VIN number was also located on the

CF 7501 and on the invoices, although, as noted, this did not

occur in every case. Protestant notes that Customs officers

would periodically examine the VIN number to determine the

country of origin. Based on this information which was available

to the Customs officers, Protestant contends that it was Customs

responsibility to determine the amount of duty to be deposited at

entry and to properly classify the merchandise. Protestant

argues that Customs did classify the vehicles uniformly for many

years, finding the merchandise to qualify for treatment as U.S.

goods returned.

\- 8

\-

We do not concur with Protestant\'s contention that Customs

knew (or should have known) that the vehicles entered under

subheading 9801.00.10 were produced in a FTZ and had not entered

the U.S. from the FTZ prior to exportation to Canada. It is true

that the VIN number located on the vehicles (and perhaps on the

entry summary and/or the invoice), reflected the country of

origin and place of manufacture in the U.S. However, the actual

name of the place of manufacture is not reflected by the VIN

number; rather, the eleventh digit of the VIN represents the

final assembly location of the vehicle. (The tenth digit

represents the model year.) To determine the actual location

requires further inquiry of the manufacturer, unless such

information was maintained by the involved Customs office. No

such showing is made. Furthermore, a plant might have been a FTZ

in a particular year but not a FTZ in the following year, or such

a change might have occurred within the same month. This

information could only be verified through communication with the

manufacturer, after review of the VIN number. Under these

circumstances, we find that Protestant has not established that

Customs knew, or had reason to know, that any of the entered

vehicles covered by the protest were produced in a FTZ. In fact,

Protestant has not established that those vehicles which may have

been produced in the FTZ were exported directly therefrom without

first being entered into the U.S.

Furthermore, as we stated in HRL 558983, we believe that a

uniform and established practice cannot exist for entries which

are claimed to be duty-free under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS.

In Peugeot Motors Of America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT

167 (1984), the Court of International Trade held that the law

governing an established and uniform practice was not intended to

cover appraisement of merchandise. The court pointed to the

opening statutory phrase under 19 U.S.C. 1315(d) (\"No

administrative ruling resulting in the imposition of a higher

rate of duty or charge \...\"), and stated that it related to the

imposition of a rate of duty which is imposed under the

classification provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1500 and not the

appraisement provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1500 and 1402. The court

further stated the following:

Uniformity in classification\...was

intended to be

covered by section 1315(d). Appraisement

is

conceptually different from

classification. In

appraisement every transaction stands

independently.

The same merchandise from the same

manufacturer

\- 9

\-

sold to a different purchase may result in

an

entirely different appraisement, as well

as the basis

of appraisement, depending upon the terms,

conditions,

and restrictions, etc. of the sale.

Consequently, a uniform

practice of appraisement is not

possible\....

Id at 171.

We believe that the principles gleaned from the court\'s

reasoning are also applicable to the eligibility requirements

under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS. Thus, in order for an entry

to be free of duty under this provision, certain documentation

requirements must be met, or the port director must be satisfied

that all of the requirements for eligibility under this provision

have been met so that the documentation requirements may be

waived. Therefore, the fact that one Ford Taurus may enter into

the U.S. at a free rate of duty under subheading 9801.00.10,

HTSUS, does not necessarily mean that a similar Ford Taurus is

eligible to enter into the U.S. duty-free under subheading

9801.00.10, HTSUS. While the courts have found that a section

1315(d) \"established and uniform practice\" can be predicated on

uniform classifications and liquidations at various ports over a

period of time (Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., supra), the facts at issue

in this case, however, do not merely involve the question of

whether or not a certain tariff classification applies, but

rather whether the subject vehicles have satisfied all of the

requirements for duty-free eligibility under a Chapter 98, HTSUS,

provision. Entries under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, are fact

specific, and like appraisement issues, \"every transaction stands

independently.\" Peugeot Motors, supra at 171. Hence, mere

liquidations covering the same type of merchandise at a free rate

of duty are not enough to establish a uniform and established

practice with regard to eligibility for duty-free treatment under

subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS.

2\) Detrimental Reliance

Protestant further maintains that Customs\' publication of

C.S.D. 95-3 has the effect of applying retroactively a new

Customs Service position to substantially identical transactions

entered into in reliance on a previous Customs Service position.

It is further claimed that this modification is in violation of

19 C.F.R. §177.9(e)(1), which concerns ruling letters which have

the effect of modifying past Customs

\- 10 -

treatment of transactions not covered by ruling letters.

According to 19 C.F.R. 177.9(e)(1):

The Customs Service will from time to time issue a

ruling letter

covering a transaction or issue not previously the

subject of a

ruling letter and which has the effect of modifying

the treatment

previously accorded by the Customs Service to

substantially

identical transactions of either the recipient of the

ruling letter or

other parties. (Emphasis added.)

In such circumstances, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §177.9(e)(1),

the Customs Service may delay the effective date of the ruling

letter, and continue the treatment previously accorded the

substantially identical transaction, for a period of up to 90

days from the date the ruling letter is issued. However, in

situations where a party has relied, not on a previously issued

ruling letter, but on past Customs treatment, Customs requires

that the affected party submit an application requesting a delay

in the effective date of a ruling letter. In these situations,

19 C.F.R. §177.9(e)(2) sets forth specific requirements for such

applications. According to this provision, the applicant must

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Customs Service that the

treatment previously accorded relates to substantially identical

transactions and was sufficiently consistent and continuous that

the party reasonably relied on the

past treatment in the arrangement of future transactions.

Specifically, section 177.9(e)(2) requires that the

applicant must submit evidence of past treatment by the Customs

Service covering the 2-year period immediately prior to the date

of the ruling letter, listing all substantially identical

transactions by entry number. In addition, the applicant must

provide the quantity and value of merchandise covered by each

such transaction, the ports of entry, and the dates of final

action by the Customs Service. Section 177.9(e)(2) further notes

that, \"The evidence of reliance shall include contracts, purchase

orders, or other materials tending to establish that the future

transactions were arranged based on the treatment previously

accorded by the Customs Service.\" Finally, in order to grant a

delay pursuant to 177.9(e)(1), the Regulations require that

Customs examine all relevant factors regarding the issue of

reliance. Section 177.9(e)(3) requires that Customs carefully

review the past transactions on which reliance is claimed to

determine whether there was an examination of merchandise by

Customs. Furthermore, in making the determination to delay, the

weight accorded to the documented history of consistent and

continuous Customs treatment, will be

\- 11

\-

diminished in the following instances: transactions involving

small quantities or values, informal entries, and situations

where Customs, in the interest of commercial facilitation and

accommodation, processes expeditiously and without examination

and/or import specialist review. See 19 C.F.R. §177.9(e)(3).

Protestant submits that a new Customs Service position

(C.S.D. 95-3) was applied by the Customs Service to transactions

substantially identical to the transactions involving

FTZ-produced vehicles during the period covered by the protest.

Protestant further claims that Customs\' past treatment of these

\"substantially identical transactions\" was sufficiently

consistent and continuous during the protest period so that the

importers reasonably relied thereon in arranging future

transactions and thus, Protestant has satisfied its claim for

detrimental reliance. Protestant claims that prior to the

subject entries, every vehicle produced in a FTZ, except to the

extent that the vehicle was subject to drawback, was entered

duty-free as American Goods Returned under subheading 9801.00.10,

HTSUS, and that it has submitted relevant evidence, in

satisfaction of the requirements of 19 CFR 177.9(e)(3) in this

case, that the prior entries had the relative domestic content

and the same sources (Foreign Trade Zones) as the protested

entries. Further, as there is no indication that the district

director waived production of the documentary requirements, (See

HRL 558893), Protestant contends that it reasonably believed that

Customs knew the circumstances of manufacture of the subject

vehicles and that its treatment of the entries reflected that

knowledge.

We find that Protestant has failed to demonstrate that the

entries which were

previously liquidated free of duty are substantially identical

transactions to the entries involved in this protest. As we

stated in HRL 559983, mere evidence of liquidation of a vehicle

at a free rate under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, is not

sufficient to establish that the transaction was substantially

identical to the subject entries. In order to be eligible for

duty-free treatment under this provision, each entry must satisfy

the documentation requirements or the port director must be

satisfied that all of the requirements for eligibility are

satisfied so that the documentary evidence may be waived. In the

instant case, there is also no indication that the district

director (now port director) waived production of the documentary

requirements. Therefore, even if Protestant could produce

evidence that vehicles manufactured in a FTZ were exported

directly from the zone to Canada and subsequently imported into

the U.S. free of duty under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, this

would not mean that future entries of vehicles would have been

entitled to enter into the U.S. free of duty. As

\- 12

\-

previously indicated, the requirements (including documentation)

for eligibility under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, must be

satisfied for each article at the time of its importation, and

cannot be based upon prior importations of similar articles.

In summary, Protestant has not established whether the prior

entries which were accorded duty-free treatment involved

substantially identical circumstances (exportation from a FTZ

without transfer to the customs territory) as the entries which

are the subject of this protest, or that Customs knew the

circumstances of the manufacture of the vehicles. Further,

Protestant has failed to submit evidence of the claimed treatment

by Customs covering the 2-year period immediately prior to the

date of the ruling letter, as required by 19 CFR 177.9(e)(2).

Under the circumstances, we find that Protestant has not

established a basis for claiming detrimental reliance pursuant to

19 CFR 177.9(e).

3\) General Note 3(d), HTSUS

As determined above, automobiles produced in FTZs that are

exported directly to Canada or Mexico and not formally entered

for consumption in the U.S., generally are subject to duty on the

full value (i.e., both foreign and domestic content) of the

automobile when they re-enter the U.S. General Note 3(d), HTSUS,

which was added by section 19 of the Miscellaneous Trade and

Technical Corrections Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-295, 110 Stat.

3514 (October 11, 1996), however, provides, in part, as follows

with respect to the calculation of duties on the foregoing

vehicles when appropriate information is presented:

\[n\]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the

duty imposed

on a qualified article shall be the amount

determined by

multiplying the applicable foreign value content of

such article

by the applicable rate of duty for such article.

General Note 3(d)(ii), HTSUS, defines a \"qualified

article\" as an

article that is:

\(A\) classifiable under any of subheadings 8702.10

through 8704.90

of the \[HTSUS\],

\(B\) produced or manufactured in a foreign trade zone

before

\- 13

\-

January 1, 1996,

\(C\) exported therefrom to a NAFTA country (as

defined in section 2(4)

of the NAFTA Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3301(4)),

and

\(D\) subsequently imported from that NAFTA country

into the customs territory of the United

States\--

\(I\) on or after the effective date of this

subdivision, or

\(II\) on or after January 1, 1994, and before

such effective date, if

the entry of such article is unliquidated,

under protest, or in

litigation, or liquidation is otherwise not

final on such effective date.

In this case, the articles are Ford Taurus station wagons

classified under heading 8703, HTSUS. The entry documentation

indicates that the vehicles were entered into the U.S. from

Canada on March 29, 1994. Protestant also submits that the

vehicles were produced in a U.S. FTZ. Therefore, provided

protestant presents (within a specified period of time)

sufficient information to establish the \"applicable foreign value

content\" as well as \"the FTZ percentage\" required under General

Note 3(d), duty will be payable only on the foreign content

contained in each vehicle. See Fact Sheet 7346071 dated December

11, 1996. To the extent that the vehicles qualify for the

reduced duties under General Note 3(d), this protest should be

granted in part.

HOLDING:

1\) Based on the information provided, the subject vehicles

made from U.S. and foreign components which are produced in a

FTZ, exported directly from the FTZ into Canada and then imported

into the U.S. are not entitled to duty-free treatment under

subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS. Furthermore, we do not find that

Protestant has demonstrated that either an established and

uniform practice was created pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1315(d), or a

claim for detrimental reliance is warranted within the meaning of

19 C.F.R. §177.9(e). However, if sufficient information is

presented to establish that the vehicles qualify for reduced

duties under General Note 3(d), as added by Pub. L. 104-295, 110

Stat. 3514 (October 11, 1996), duty is payable only on the

applicable foreign content contained in the vehicle, and this

protest should be granted in part accordance with the foregoing.

\- 14

\-

In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive

099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest

Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office to the

Protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.

Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision

must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty

days from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and

Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to customs

personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public

via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act

and other public access channels.

Sincerely,

John

Durant, Director

Tariff

Classification Appeals Division