Further review of a protest which would otherwise be denied by the Center director shall be accorded a party filing an application for further review which meets the requirements of § 174.25 when the decision against which the protest was filed:
(a) Is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of CBP or his designee, or with a decision made by CBP with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise;
(b) Is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of CBP or his designee or by the Customs courts;
(c) Involves matters previously ruled upon by the Commissioner of CBP or his designee or by the Customs courts but facts are alleged or legal arguments presented which were not considered at the time of the original ruling; or
(d) Is alleged to involve questions which the Headquarters Office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, refused to consider in the form of a request for internal advice pursuant to § 177.11(b)(5) of this chapter.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 71-133, 36 FR 8732, May 12, 1971; T.D. 75-186, 40 FR 31928, July 30, 1975]
Notes of Decisions
Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“If Further Review is applied for, set forth additionally, a justification for Further Review under the criteria in 19 C.F.R. 174.24 and 174.25. Koike’s'entry under block 9 is set forth below in its entirety: Protest is made against the assessment of duties, as classified under…”
Corning Gilbert Inc. v. United States, 2013 CIT 15 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
“§ 1515 (a) and 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.24 and 177.2, applied for further review, and requested an administrative ruling from Customs Headquarters.”
United States v. Rotek, Inc., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 503 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
“If a supplemental petition is filed after the referral, please forward it to the Department of Justice through the Assistant Chief Counsel as provided for in 19 C.F.R. § 174.24 . You may authorize extensions of this period only if the petitioner provides an acceptable waiver of…”
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 2011 CIT 113 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
“If, however, the port director determines that the protest should be denied, in whole or in part, further review of the protest is undertaken by Customs’ Headquarters, rather than the applicable port director, so long as one of the criteria for further review, set forth in 19…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.