HQ 220997: Savannah Protest No. 1703-87-000101; 19 CFR 174.26(b)(1); 19CFR 174.26(b)(2); San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. U.S.;Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. U.S.

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 220997

                        January 25, 1989

PRO-4-CO:R:C:E 220997 C

CATEGORY:  Entry/Liquidation

Paul S. Anderson
Sonnenberg, Anderson, O'Donnell & Rodriguez
200 West Adams Street
Suite 2625
Chicago, Illinois  60606

RE:  Savannah Protest No. 1703-87-000101; 19 CFR 174.26(b)(1); 19
CFR 174.26(b)(2); San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. U.S.;
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. U.S.

Dear Mr. Anderson:

     This responds to your letter of October 18, 1988, concerning
the referenced subject.

     By memorandum of January 25, 1989, we requested a report
from the Savannah District Office regarding the referenced
protest.  A response, dated February 15, 1989, was received.  We
apologize for the delay in responding to your request to review
the denial of the protest.

     The merchandise in question was entered on February 24,
1987.  The entry was liquidated on June 19, 1987.  The referenced
protest and application for further review (AFR) was timely filed
on July 15, 1987.  On September 2, 1987, the district director
submitted the protest to the regional commissioner, recommending
that the protest be denied.  On September 25, 1987, the protest
was returned to the district director with instructions to notify
the PROTESTANT of the denial.  The Deputy Assistant Regional
Commissioner for Classification and Value indicated that the
protest did not meet the requirements for further review. 
Subsequently, on February 24, 1988, the district director denied
the protest.

     You have alleged that your client received the denial of the
protest in May of 1988, only after contacting the district office
and requesting a copy.  You further allege that it was some
undisclosed time later that your client received reasons for the
denial, again after having to request same.

     The Savannah District Office reported that records are not
kept to verify dates of mailed protest determinations.  However,
it is the standard practice of the district office to forward a
copy of protest determinations to protestants.  The district
office reported that inquiries regarding non-receipt of protest
determinations are "very few."  It is also the practice of the
district office to include reasons for the denial of a protest.

     The Customs Regulations, Title 19, Code of Federal
Regulations, govern the protest procedure.  (See 19 C.F.R., Part
174, implementing 19 U.S.C. 1514.)  A protest/AFR filed with a
district director shall be submitted to Customs Headquarters in
certain circumstances.  19 C.F.R. 174.26(b)(1).  Where those
circumstances are not evident, the protest/AFR shall be submitted
to the regional commissioner.  19 C.F.R. 174.26(b)(2).  In the
instant case, the district director submitted the protest to the
regional commissioner.  The regional commissioner determined that
the issue did not qualify for further review under 19 C.F.R.
174.24 and returned the protest to the district director to be
disposed of in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 174.29.  On February 24,
1988, the district director executed the CF 19 denying the
protest.  A copy of the CF 19 in the file shows that the denial
was based on : 1) the inapplicability of further review and 2)
the assertion that the merchandise was properly classified and
liquidated.  Reference was made in the denial to Customs
Headquarters ruling letter 024303.

     You challenge the correctness of the protest denial and
assert that your client has been wrongfully denied the
opportunity to have Customs Headquarters review and rule on the
legal issues presented in the protest.  This is indeed a
challenge to the regional commissioner's determination that the
further review procedure was inapplicable.  Consequently, you
request that Customs Headquarters review the denial of the
protest and, if determined to be improper, consider the protest
anew.

     Upon denial of a protest, whether it be a simple protest or
one requesting further review, a protestant can choose one of two
courses: 1) abandon the matter, or 2) bring an action in the
Court of International Trade.   San Francisco Newspaper Printing
Co. v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 738, 9 CIT 517 (1985).  (See
also 19 U.S.C. 1514(a); 19 C.F.R. 174.31.)  Customs Regulation
174.31 provides that a protestant can file such an action within
180 days of the date the denial was mailed.  19 C.F.R. 174.31. 
Under 19 C.F.R. 174.30, the date appearing on the denial shall be
considered the date of mailing.  In the instant case, the date
appearing on the denial is February 24, 1988.  Your client's only
recourse then was to file an action with the court within 180
days of the foregoing date.  Once a protest is determined by
Customs, it no longer maintains jurisdiction over the matter. 
Customs lacks statutory or regulatory authority for the review
you seek.  (On the subject of whether or not Customs action in
this case warrants vacatur of the notice of denial or a tolling
of the statute of limitations for filing an action in the Court
of International Trade, see Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United
States, No.85-07-00910, slip op. 90-34 (CIT April 2, 1990).)

     Again, we apologize for the delay in responding.  If you
have any further questions, please contact this office.

                               Sincerely,




                               John Durant, Director