HQ 223679: Protest #2809-91-100686 concerning duty refund under section483(b)(1)(B) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990; TariffSchedules of the United States (TSUS) item 676.15; digitalprocessing unit; San Francisco Customs district InformationNotice 91-03.

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 223679

                          May 26, 1992


LIQ-10 CO:R:C:E 223679  TLS

CATEGORY: Entry

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
555 Battery Street
P.0. Box 2450
San Francisco, California  94126


RE: Protest #2809-91-100686 concerning duty refund under section
483(b)(1)(B) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990; Tariff
Schedules of the United States (TSUS) item 676.15; digital
processing unit; San Francisco Customs district Information
Notice 91-03.


Dear Sir:

     The above-referenced protest has been forwarded to this
office for further review.  We have considered the points raised
by the protestant and your office.  Our decision follows.

FACTS:

     Your office sent out an Information Notice (#91-03) dated
October 11, 1990, which expired February 17, 1991.  The notice
was sent to all brokers who had entered through your district
digital processing units that were subject to section
483(b)(1)(B) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990.  Act of Aug.
20, 1990, 104 Stat. 649, Pub. L. No. 101-382 (1990 Trade Act). 
That section "provides for the liquidation or reliquidation of
entries of digital processing units without regard to the normal
timeliness constraints of 19 U.S.C. 1514 or any other provision
of law, provided that entry was made after January 16, 1986 and
prior to July 2, 1987, and that the entries contain digital
processing units that have been entered under items 676.15 or
676.54 of TSUS, and if classified in 676.15 would not have been
subject to temporary duties under 945.83 or 945.84 of TSUS."

     In addition to the requirements noted above, the claimant
was required to request a reliquidation in writing with the
appropriate Customs officer within 180 days after the enactment
of the 1990 Trade Act.  This meant that the request had to be
filed after August 20, 1990 and on or before February 17, 1991. 
The claimant did not file a timely request under the
aforementioned statute, a fact that it does not dispute.  The
protestant contends that since it did not receive a Notice of
Action on the subject entries as an importer, but as a consignee,
it was misled by Customs as to its rights in this transaction. 
The importer has timely filed this protest to present its claim
after having missed the statutory deadline for reliquidation.

ISSUE:

     Whether the Customs Service has the authority to extend the
180-day filing period provided for under section 483(b)(1)(B) of
the 1990 Customs and Trade Act if it misled the protestant.

     Whether either the Customs Information Notice 91-03 or the
consignee's copy of the Notice of Action on the subject entry can
be said to have in fact misled the protestant.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Section 500(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides for
Customs giving notice of classification, appraisement, and
liquidation procedures.  In the present case, the importer was
notified of its right to request reliquidation on the subject
entry to receive duty-free treatment.  The importer acknowledges
such.  The notice states that the reliquidation will be done upon
"request"; reliquidation is not required nor is it done as an
automatic right.  Hence, whether a particular entry is
reliquidated under section 483(b)(1)(B) is entirely at the
importer's own discretion.

     The protestant claims that its right to reliquidate under
the 1990 Trade Act were somehow compromised when Customs sent a
consignee's copy of the Notice of Action on the subject entry. 
Therefore, it is alleged, the protestant did not have cause to
"recognize" that it could have made a timely request for
reliquidation of the entry under section 483(b).  We find no
merit in this claim.  It appears that the protestant wishes us to
find Customs at fault for not giving it reason to believe that
the protestant is the importer of record on this entry.  Whether
the protestant received a consignee's copy of the Notice of
Action or the importer of record copy has no bearing on the fact
that it was notified of its right to reliquidate the entry. 
Customs is not responsible for the importer's recognition of its
status as the importer of record on the entry.  The only
obligation Customs had with regard to the protestant's right to
reliquidate under section 483(b) was to notify it of such.  That
was clearly done in this case.  Therefore, we find that the
protestant has no claim to reliquidate the subject entry because
it has not timely filed a request to do so.

     Customs does not have the right to extend the 180-day filing
period under section 483, even if the protestant had been misled
by the Information Notice or the Notice of Action.  The special
statutory provision does not provide for extension of the filing
period for any reason.  Where Customs has been allowed to extend
the filing period under statute, the authority has been expressly
provided for.  See, e.g., Tariff Act of 1930 504, 19 U.S.C. 1504
(1980).  Furthermore, court cases have decided that Customs
cannot exercise jurisdiction over a matter once the statutory
deadline has passed, absent express authority to do so.  See San
Francisco Newspaper Printing Company v. United States, 9 CIT 517,
620 F. Supp. 738 (1985); Marposs Gauges Corp. v. United States, 9
CIT 193 (1985).  Therefore, Customs cannot reliquidate the
subject entry because the filing deadline for such action has
passed without the requisite action being taken by the importer.

HOLDING:

     Customs fulfilled its obligation to the protestant when it
notified it of its right to reliquidate the subject entry under
section 483(b)(1)(B) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. 
Customs is under no obligation to notify the broker of its status
as importer of record on the entry.  The protestant cannot claim 
reliquidation of the entry under section 483(b) because it did
not file a timely request to do so.  Customs does not have the
authority to extend the deadline under section 483(b). 
Accordingly, the protest should be denied in full.  A copy of
this decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and
provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the
protest.

                               Sincerely,




                               John Durant, Director