 HQ 953309 |
|
June 3, 1993
CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 953309 SK
CATEGORY: Classification
District Director U.S. Customs Service 40 South Gay Street Baltimore, MD 21202
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1303-92-100269; 19 CFR 174.24; protest denied where matter has previously been ruled on by Customs and no new facts or legal arguments are presented in the application for further review.
Dear Sir:
The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the protest and our decision follows.
Protestant's request for further review may be summarily dismissed. The scope of review in this protest is on administrative record, and protestant has not presented any new evidence or legal arguments in support of the assertions presented in the protest.
As mandated in 19 CFR 174.24(c), the Customs Service will not grant further review of a protest which involves matters previously ruled upon by Customs in which no new facts or legal arguments are presented. In the instant case, protestant disputes the holding in New York Ruling Letter (NYRL) 865310, dated August 1, 1991, in which Customs classified a nonwoven filtering material as a filter or straining fabric under subheading 5911.40.0000, HTSUSA. That ruling was affirmed in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 950493, dated September 29, 1992. HRL 950493 gave a detailed response as to why such filtering material was properly classifiable under subheading 5911.40.0000, HTSUSA.
In both protestant's submission to Customs when requesting a reconsideration of NYRL 865310, and in the current application for further review, protestant states that the merchandise at issue is not classifiable under subheading 5911.40.0000, HTSUSA, because: 1) it is not a straining cloth of a kind used in oil
- 2 -
presses and the like; and 2) this material is more specifically provided for in subheading 5911.90, HTSUSA, as other articles for technical uses.
As no new evidence or legal arguments were presented to this office in protestant's application for further review, the criteria for further review as set forth in 19 CFR 174.24(c) has not been met. Therefore, based on the foregoing, this protest should be denied in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the CF 19 Notice of Action to satisfy the notice requirement of section 174.30(a), Customs Regulations.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director