C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER I—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 174—PROTESTS › Subpart C—Review and Disposition of Protests

19 C.F.R. § 174.25

Application for further review

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Form and number of copies. An application for further review may be filed on the same Customs Form 19 used for filing the protest for which further review is requested, or on a separate Customs Form 19. In either case, the Customs Form 19 shall be filed in quadruplicate. If a fifth copy of the application is presented for the purpose of having recorded thereon the date of its receipt, such information shall be recorded thereon and the fifth copy shall be returned to the person filing the application.

(b) Contents. An application for further review shall contain the following information:

(1) Information identifying the protest to which it applies and the protesting party and his importer number;

(2) Allegations that the protesting party:

(i) Has not previously received an adverse administrative decision from the Commissioner of Customs or his designee nor has presently pending an application for an administrative decision on the same claim with respect to the same category of merchandise; and

(ii) Has not received a final adverse decision from the Customs courts on the same claim with respect to the same category of merchandise and does not have an action involving such a claim pending before the Customs courts.

(3) A statement of any facts or additional legal arguments, not part of the record, upon which the protesting party relies, including the criterion set forth in § 174.24 which justifies further review. A showing of facts that support the allegation of a criterion set forth in § 174.24(c) will constitute a ground for the granting of further review in circumstances where the applicant's inability to affirmatively make the allegations described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section would otherwise result in its denial.

[T.D. 70-81, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 78-99, 43 FR 13062, Mar. 29, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: Hitachi Home Elec. (Am.), Inc. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hitachi Home Elec. (Am.), Inc. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 2× “) Customs asserts that it had drafted a response to Hitachi’s AFR by then, but could not issue any decision on any of Hitachi’s or Samsung’s protests under 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.25 (b)(2)(ii) and 177.7(b) because a related case was pending before this Court.”
Hitachi Home Elecs. (Am.), Inc. v. United States, 2010 CIT 46 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 2× “) Customs asserts that it had drafted a response to Hitachi’s AFR by then, but could not issue any decision on any of Hitachi’s or Samsung’s protests under 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.25 (b)(2)(ii) and 177.7(b) because a related case was pending before this Court.”
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.