HQ 224131: Protest and Application for Further Review No. 2501-92- 100049; 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1); HTS 9802.00.80; correction of Cost Submission (CF 247)

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                               HQ 224131

                        October 30, 1992

LIQ-9-01-CO:R:C:E 224131 CB

CATEGORY:  Entry

District Director 
U.S. Customs Service
Otay Mesa Border Station
2500 Paseo International
San Ysidro, CA 92073

RE:  Protest and Application for Further Review No. 2501-92-
     100049; 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1); HTS 9802.00.80; correction
     of Cost Submission (CF 247)

Dear Sir:

     The above-referenced protest and application for further
review was forwarded to this office for further review.  We have
considered the points raised and our decision follows.

FACTS:

     The facts, as can be determined from the file and presented
by protestant, are as follows.  The Import Specialist requested,
from the importer, manufacturer's certificates for items claimed
under HTS 9802.00.80.  The importer did not have the certificates
available and an extension was granted.  The entries were ordered
to be filed fully dutiable, without the benefit of HTS
9802.00.80, after the importer failed to provide the
certificates.  The fourteen entries which were the subject of
this protest were filed during the period from April 10, 1991 to
May 16, 1991.  The required certificates were filed during May of
1991, after the subject entries were filed.  Upon the filing of
the certificates, entries made subsequent to May 19, 1991 were
accepted with the claim for treatment under 9802.00.80, HTS. 
However, the fourteen entries in issue were liquidated dutiable. 

     The subject entries were liquidated between August 30, 1991
and October 18, 1991.  On February 28, 1992, protestant submitted
a written request to the District Director for permission to
"take into account the amount of duty paid on these components,
on our cost submission for the second half of 1991."  According
to the protest, the importer operates under "computed value" and
is required to file a "Cost Submission" (CF 247) every six-
months.  The CF 247 lists actual material costs and actual
production expenses.  The correction was intended to rectify the
duty paid on the U.S. components denied HTS 9802.00.80 treatment.
The written request was submitted to the District Director and
was denied on March 23, 1992.  The subject protest was filed.  It
is protestant's contention that it should be allowed to amend its
costs submissions.  Or, in the alternative, that the subject
entries be reliquidated pursuant to 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1).

ISSUES:

     Whether the district director erred in denying protestant's
request to correct the cost submissions?

     Whether liquidation of the subject entries was a mistake of
fact under 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1)?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Initially, we note that protestant's request for
reliquidation under 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1) and its instant protest
filed under 19 U.S.C.  1514(a)(7) was filed timely.  Its
application for further review of the protest is proper under 19
C.F.R.  174.24.

Issue #1

     Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.  1514
(1982)), sets forth the proper procedure for an importer to
protest the classification and appraisal of merchandise when it
believes the Customs Service has misinterpreted the applicable
law.  A protest must be filed within ninety days after notice of
liquidation or reliquidation.  Under the entry processing scheme,
it is the protest procedure that provides for redress of errors
in the liquidation of entries.  Virtually any error in the
liquidation can be corrected if brought to Customs attention
within 90 days of the date of liquidation.

     Section 520, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.  1520
(c)(1)), is an exception to the finality of  1514.  An entry may
be reliquidated to correct a clerical error, mistake of fact, or
other inadvertence not amounting to an error in the construction
of a law.  The sole remedy provided under 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1)
is reliquidation of an entry.  An error, regardless of its
nature, is outside the scope of section 1520(c)(1) if the
requested remedy is something other than the act of reliquidation
of an entry.  Here, the protestant is requesting a remedy that
Customs does not have the authority to provide under section
520(c)(1), i.e. to allow the importer to file updated cost
submissions.  

Issue #2

     It is well-settled law that the importer of record has the
obligation to check the bulletin notice of liquidations posted in
the customhouse at the port of entry to determine the date of
liquidation and to preserve the right to protest.  Tropicana
Products, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cust. B. & Dec. No. 24, p.
16, Slip Op. No. 89-64 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 12, 1989).  The only
statutorily mandated notice of liquidation is the bulletin
notice.  See 19 C.F.R. 159.9(b), (c); Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH
& Co.v. United States, 13 Ct. Int'l Trade ___, 706 F. Supp. 892,
895 (1989), aff'd, 885 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1989); United States
v. Reliable Chemical Co., 605 F.2d 1179, 1183, 66 C.C.P.A. 123,
127, C.A.D.  

     There is no mistake of fact or clerical error in this case
within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1).  The error in this
case was the broker's failure to perform his duty of finding out
the correct date and rate of duty at which the entries were
liquidated.  Such an error does not entitle the importer to
equitable relief.  See Occidental Oil & Gas Co. v. United States,
13 Ct. Int'l Trade ___, Slip Op. No. 89-40 (March 29, 1989).  If
the protestant believed that the liquidated classification and
appraisement decisions erroneously failed to take into account
the correct cost submissions, the only proper course was to
protest timely.  Under 19 U.S.C.  1504 protestant had ninety days
from the date of liquidation within which to protest the
liquidation of the entries and to correct the cost submissions
affected by these entries.  

HOLDING:

     The district director's denial of permission to update cost
submissions is not subject to review under 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1)
which only provides one remedy:  reliquidation of an entry. 
Further, the broker's failure to check the bulletin notice of
liquidation to determine the date of liquidation for the subject
entries is not a mistake of fact, clerical error or other
inadvertence correctable under 19 U.S.C.  1520(c)(1).  Therefore,
this protest should be denied.

          A copy of this decision should be attached to the
Customs Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part of the
notice of action on the protest.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division