HQ 223273: Application for further review of Protest No. 4909-91-1000063; payment of interest on refund after liquidation; P.L.100-647

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 223273

                       September 25, 1991

LIQ-10-CO:R:C:E  223273 CB

CATEGORY:  Entry/Protest

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
La Puntilla #1
Old San Juan, PR  00903

RE:  Application for further review of Protest No. 4909-91-
1000063; payment of interest on refund after liquidation; P.L.
100-647

Dear Sir/Madam:

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

FACTS:

     The file seems to indicate that the subject merchandise was
entered sometime between February 9, 1988 and September 19, 1988
and liquidated "as entered" "no change".  Thereafter, the
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-
647, 102 Stat. 3809 (1988), extended the effective period for the
reduced duty rate applicable to the subject merchandise. 
Consequently, the protested entries were reliquidated on April 5,
1991, and a refund was issued to protestant.  Interest was not
paid on the refund.  Protestant now claims that the refund should
have included interest.

ISSUE:

     Whether interest is due on a refund of duties when an entry
is reliquidated pursuant to a change in the tariff treatment of
merchandise?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Protestant contends that it is entitled to payment of
interest on the refunds based on the Court of International Trade
decisions in Kalan, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cust. B. & Dec. No.
51, p. 17, Slip Op. No. 90-119 (CIT November 21, 1990) and
Hospital Corp. of America v. United States, 24 Cust. B. & Dec. 
                               -2-


No. 51, p. 22, Slip Op. No. 90-120 (CIT November 23, 1990) which
held that an importer is entitled to the payment of interest on a
refund based on a 19 U.S.C. 1520(c)(1) reliquidation.

     We disagree with protestant for the following reasons. 
Although it is true that the courts have held that an importer is
entitled to interest on the refund paid by Customs as a result of
the reliquidation of merchandise at a lower rate of duty, these
decisions were based on 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) which provides:

     If a determination is made to reliquidate an entry as a
     result of a protest filed under section 1514 of this title
     or an application for relief made under subsection (c)(1) of
     this section, or if reliquidation is ordered by an
     appropriate court, interest shall be allowed on any amount
     paid as increased or additional duties under section 1505(c)
     of this title....


In the instant case, reliquidation was not based on sections 1514
and 1520, nor was it by court order.  Reliquidations were made
pursuant to the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. 
It is recognized that "the starting point for interpreting a
statute is the language of the statute itself."  Consumer Prod.
Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).  
Section 1520(d) does not provide for the payment of interest on
reliquidations made pursuant to an Act.  The Customs Service
cannot apply a statute beyond its scope.  

     Additionally, it should be noted that subsequent to the
filing of the subject protest, the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit reversed the holding of the Court of
International Trade in Kalan.  The Court held that Section
1520(d) expressly allows an importer to recover interest only on
amounts paid as increased or additional duties.  Kalan Inc. v.
United States, No. 91-1117,-1163 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 1991).  The
Court did not find any basis on which to allow interest on
refunds of excess estimated duties.

HOLDING:

     An importer is not entitled to interest under 19 U.S.C. 1520
(d) when reliquidation is based on something other than a court
order or 19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520(c).  Therefore, this protest
should be denied.
                               -3-


     A copy of this decision should be attached to the CF 19,
Notice of Action, and sent to protestant to satisfy the notice
requirement of section 174.30(a), Customs Regulations.

                              
                                   Sincerely,





                                   John A. Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division