HQ 222595: Application for further review of Protest No. 2304-6- 000159 under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1)

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 222595

                        February 1, 1991

LIQ-9-01-CO:R:C:E  222595 CB

CATEGORY:  Protest/Liquidation

Regional Commissioner
U.S. Customs Service
Suite 500
5850 San Felipe Street
Houston, TX  77057-3012

RE:  Application for further review of Protest No. 2304-6-
     000159 under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1)

Dear Sir:

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

FACTS:

     Protestant alleges a mistake of fact with respect to the
classification of the subject entries and seeks relief under 19
U.S.C. 1520(c)(1).  According to protestant, the subject
merchandise was erroneously entered by the customhouse broker,
and later liquidated, as ordinary glass.

     The merchandise at issue is colored sheet glass imported
from Mexico.  At the time of entry classification under TSUS item
542.31 or 542.37 was asserted by importer's broker.  Protestant
claims that the broker's mistake resulted in a mistake of fact on
the part of the Commodity Specialist when classifying the
merchandise.  Protestant claims the mistake in classification was
brought to the attention of the Customs Service by way of a
letter dated May 28, 1985.  The letter pointed out the error in
the entry and liquidation of thirty-seven (37) entries.  Fourteen
(14) of the entries were re-liquidated.  The remaining twenty-
three (23) entries are the subject of this protest.  

ISSUE:

     Whether the subject entries qualify for reliquidation under
19 U.S.C. 1520(c)?
                               -2-


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1514 (1982 & Supp. 1985)), sets forth the proper procedure
for an importer to protest the classification and appraised value
of its merchandise when it believes Customs has misinterpreted
the applicable law and incorrectly classified the imported
merchandise.  Section 514 makes the tariff treatment of goods
final and conclusive, unless the classification is protested
within ninety days of liquidation.

     Section 520(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1520(c)(1), provides that Customs may correct certain
errors, if adverse to the importer, within one year of the date
of liquidation.  An entry may be reliquidated in order to correct
a clerical error, mistake of fact, or inadvertence not amounting
to an error in the construction of a law.  See 19 U.S.C. 1520
(c)(1); 19 CFR 173.4.  Section 520(c) is not an alternative to
the normal liquidation-protest method of obtaining review, but
rather affords limited relief where an unnoticed or unintentional
error has been committed.  See Computime, Inc. v. United States,
9 Ct. Int'l Trade 553, 554, 622 F. Supp. 1083, 1085 (1985); see
also Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cust. B. &
Dec. No. 29, p. 38, Slip Op. No. 89-89 (CIT June 27, 1989).

     Section T.D. 54848 describes and distinguishes correctable
errors under 1520(c)(1).  Mistake of fact occurs when a person
believes the facts to be other than what they really are and
takes action based on that erroneous belief.  The reason for the
belief may be that a fact exists but is unknown to the person or
he may believe that something is a fact when in reality it is
not.  Inadvertence connotes inattention, oversight, negligence,
or lack of care while clerical error occurs when a person intends
to do one thing but does something else, including mistakes in
arithmetic and the failure to associate all the papers in a
record under consideration.  These errors are not necessarily
mutually exclusive.  However, errors in the construction of a law
are not correctable under 1520(c).  Those occur when a person
knows the true facts of a case but has a mistaken belief of the
legal consequences of those facts and acts on that mistaken
belief.  94 Treas. Dec. 244, 245-246 (1959).

     The protestant's claim for relief under 19 U.S.C. 1520
(c)(1) is that both the Customshouse broker and Import Specialist
were unaware of the actual nature of the glass covered by these
entries.  The merchandise is described, in both the commercial
invoice and consumption entry, as grey sheet glass.  The record  -3-


indicates that the merchandise was liquidated as entered without
an examination.  The record also indicates that there was no
disagreement, between the importer and the Customs Service, as to
the issue of whether the merchandise was polished glass.  The
dispute was only as to the inferior heading within item 542,
TSUS, although that item provides for glass not polished.  

     As stated by the Court of International Trade in PPG
Industries, Inc. v. United States, 7 Ct. Int'l Trade 118, 124
(1984), three conditions must be satisfied before an entry can be
reliquidated to correct a mistake of fact:

     (1)  a mistake of fact must exist;
     (2)  the mistake must be manifest from the record or
established by documentary evidence; and
     (3)  the mistake of fact must be brought to the attention of
the Customs Service within the time requirements of the statute.

     In the instant case, protestant has satisfied all three
requirements.  A mistake of fact has occurred.  There is evidence
of the mistake, e.g. the fact that the District approved another
520(c) claim made by the same customs broker on behalf of the
same importer with respect to the same type of glass.  The fact
that the District approved a similar claim is not determinative;
however, it does support protestant's claim.  And, there is
documentary evidence of protestant's attempt to bring the mistake
to the attention of the Customs Service within the statutory time
limitation.  Therefore, the record sufficiently establishes a
clerical error, mistake of fact or inadvertence on the part of
the broker and Import Specialist.  

HOLDING:

     Based on the information provided and the record, protestant
has met the requirements of a 1520(c) request for reliquidation. 
Therefore, protest should be approved in full.


                                Sincerely,




                                John Durant, Director
                                Commercial Rulings Division