HQ 224445: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4909-92-100067; Antidumping Duties; 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1); 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6) Dear Sir:

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 224445

                          May 24, 1993

PRO-2-02/LIQ-4-01-CO:R:C:E 224445 PH

CATEGORY:  PROTEST

District Director
United States Customs Service
La Puntilla No. 1
Old San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903

RE:  Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4909-92-100067;
     Antidumping Duties; 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1); 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)
 
Dear Sir:

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

     The protestant's request for further review may be summarily
disposed of.  The scope of review in this protest is on the
administrative record, and the protestant has not presented any
evidence in support of its counsel's bald assertions.  The Customs
Service will not grant further review of a blanket protest.  The
protestant must comply with the statutory and regulatory
requirements.  Under 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1), a protest of a decision
must set forth distinctly and specifically each decision as to
which protest is made.  See generally, United States v. Parksmith
Corp., 62 CCPA 76, 514 F. 2d 1052, C.A.D. 1149 (1975); American
Commerce Co. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 98, 173 F. Supp. 812,
C.D. 2072 (1959); United States v. E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 CCPA 89,
C.A.D. 291 (1944).

     In this protest, counsel simply asserts that the protestant
makes certain claims such as "improper appraisement," "improper
classification," "clerical error, mistake of fact or other
inadvertence," "contract defenses," "no bond," "no bond
obligation," and "laches."  Counsel also asserts that the
protestant is not responsible for the assessment of duties
resulting from a liquidation or reliquidation made under 19 U.S.C.
1592(d) (not the case in this protest), that "antidumping,
countervailing and/or marking duties are not lawfully assessed on
this merchandise."  In regard to the latter, counsel asserts that
the liquidation instructions of the Department of Commerce
regarding the collection of antidumping duties were not properly
followed and that interest was not collected in accordance with
the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1677g.

     The Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)) require that a
protest set forth "[t]he nature of, and justification for the
objection set forth distinctly and specifically with respect to
each category, payment, claim, decision, or refusal."  The Customs
Service has and will continue to fully consider any relevant
allegation in a protest supported by competent evidence.  However,
in acting on a protest, Customs cannot and will not assume facts
that are not presented (e.g., an unsubstantiated claim that no bond
was issued and, if a bond was issued, that it did not cover the
payment of duty).

     In this protest, the only assertion which may possibly meet
the requirement for distinct and specific justification (in 19 CFR
174.13(a)(6), see above) is the assertion that the liquidation
instructions of the Department of Commerce for the antidumping
duties were not properly followed and that interest was not
collected in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677g.  In regard to the
liquidation instructions of the Department of Commerce, the Customs
Service has consulted with that Agency and was advised that the
Department of Commerce "found no evidence to support the validity
of these claims [and] recommend[ed] that [Customs] deny the
[protest]."  In regard to the assertion about interest, no interest
was collected on the antidumping duties under consideration.

     When the above-described protest was filed in this case, it
was requested that no decision be issued until supporting memoranda
could be submitted.  Subsequently, Customs was advised that counsel
for the protestant did not have additional information to supply
Customs regarding the protest and Customs was requested to respond
to the protest based on the information contained therein.  Based
on the foregoing discussion, this protest should be DENIED IN FULL. 
A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 and
provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the
protest.

                            Sincerely,




                            John Durant, Director