HQ 224926: Further review of protest #1001-93-104112 concerning theredelivery of merchandise under 19 CFR 141.113(b) and (f); C.S.D.85-22 (September 19, 1984); C.S.D. 90-99 (June 28, 1990); C.S.D.86-21 (May 16, 1986); HQ 223315 (Sept. 4, 1991), HQ 222826 (March7, 1991).

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 224926

                        January 31, 1994


BON-2/ENT-1-07 CO:R:C:E 224926  TLS

CATEGORY: Entry

Regional Commissioner
U.S. Customs Service
c/o Protest and Control Section
6 World Trade Center  Room 761
New York, New York  10048-0945


RE: Further review of protest #1001-93-104112 concerning the
redelivery of merchandise under 19 CFR 141.113(b) and (f); C.S.D.
85-22 (September 19, 1984); C.S.D. 90-99 (June 28, 1990); C.S.D.
86-21 (May 16, 1986); HQ 223315 (Sept. 4, 1991), HQ 222826 (March
7, 1991).


Dear Sir:

     This office has received the request for further review of
the above-referenced protest as provided for under Customs
regulations.  We have considered the request and have made the
following decision.

FACTS:

     On July 15, 1992, 1402 dozen girls' 100% cotton woven pants
were entered for consumption through New York Customs.  The goods
were exported from the People's Republic of China (China) and
required a quota visa for importation into the United States. 
The New York port received notification from Customs Headquarters
on April 20, 1993 that the visa accompanying the subject entry
was counterfeit.  On April 22, 1993, Customs issued a notice of
redelivery to the importer demanding redelivery of the
merchandise.

     The protestant contends that the notice is untimely because
it came nine months after the entry was made.  The importer
claims that the notice is also insufficient because it does not
establish that the visa was counterfeit.  Your office maintains
that the notice was timely issued in accordance with Customs
regulations.




ISSUES:

     Whether the notice of redelivery in this case was timely
issued.

     Whether the notice of redelivery must establish the validity
of a determination to demand redelivery.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     As noted above, the Notice to Redeliver was issued on April
22, 1993.  The importer timely filed this protest of the notice
on June 23, 1993.

     According to the Bilateral Trade Agreement between the
United States and China, textile merchandise manufactured in
China must have a visa issued upon it to be imported into the
United States.  The visa must be issued by the Chinese
government.  Section 141.113(b) of the Customs regulations
authorizes Customs District Directors to demand redelivery of any
merchandise found not to be admissible into the United States
subsequent to its release from Customs custody.

     In this case, the Chinese government notified the Customs
Service that the visa accompanying the entry in question was not
issued by their government.  To the extent that the Chinese
government disavowed responsibility for issuing the visa, Customs
made the determination that it was not valid, thereby making the
merchandise imported pursuant to it inadmissible to the commerce
of this country.

     The protestant argues that the notice is invalid because it
does not establish that the visa was counterfeit.  The issue of
sufficiency of notice to redeliver was addressed before as well. 
It has been ruled that a proper notice in demand for redelivery
of textile products need only show the entry number, entry date,
a description of the merchandise, and the reason for redelivery. 
C.S.D. 85-22 (September 19, 1984).  The ruling concluded that
Customs need not prove on the notice the validity of its
determation to demand redelivery.  In the present case, the
notice to redeliver shows the entry number, entry date, and a
description of the merchandise clearly marked on its face in
designated boxes.  The notice also provides comments explaining
the reason for the redelivery.  Thus, Customs has provided all
the information it is required to furnish on the notice.

     The notice to redeliver was issued pursuant to 19 CFR
141.113(b), which allows for such when merchandise is found
inadmissible "for any reason not enumerated in [19 CFR
141.113(a)]."  The protestant argues that section 141.113(a)
requires that notice be given within 30 days of the date of
entry, section 141.113(b) requires prompt notification by
implication.  The issue of promptness of notices to redeliver has
been addressed before.  It has been ruled that notices of
redelivery are timely if made within 30 days after release of
merchandise or some other date establised by regulation or
notice.  See C.S.D. 90-99 (June 28, 1990), C.S.D. 86-21 (May 16,
1986); see also HQ 223315 (Sept. 4, 1991), HQ 222826 (March 7,
1991).  These decisions consistently conclude that notices of
redelivery must be issued before the liquidation of the entry is
final.

     In the present case, the notice was issued before
liquidation, but more than 30 days after the date of entry.  The
notice did not set forth a time period longer than that already
provided for under Part 141.113(b) of the Customs regulations. 
Special circumstances might allow Customs to extend such a
period, but none are evident in this case.  See C.S.D. 90-99,
supra.  Therefore, we are compelled to find that Customs did not
timely issue the notice to redeliver in this case.

HOLDING:

     Customs failed to timely issue the Notice to Redeliver in
this case pursuant to 19 CFR 141.113(b).  This protest is hereby
GRANTED.

     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, Lexis, Freedom of
Information Act and other public access channels.

                    Sincerely,




                    John Durant, Director