(a) Protest allowed. If upon examination of a protest for which an application for further review was filed the Center director is satisfied that the claim is valid, he shall allow the protest.
(b) Other protests. If upon examination of a protest for which an application for further review was filed the Center director decides that the protest in his judgment should be denied in whole or in part, the Center director will forward the application together with the protest and appropriate documents to be reviewed as follows:
(1) A protest shall be reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee under Customs Delegation Order No. 1 (Revision 1), T.D. 69-126 (34 FR 8208), as amended from time to time, if the protest and application for review raise an issue involving either:
(i) Lack of uniformity of treatment;
(ii) The existence of an established and uniform practice;
(iii) The interpretation of a court decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee; or
(iv) Questions which have not been the subject of a Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service ruling or court decision.
(2) All other protests shall be reviewed by a designee of the Center director who did not participate directly in the decision which is the subject of the protest.
Notes of Decisions
Thyssen Steel Co. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 174.26 (b)(l)(iii). Therefore, review at the administrative level would not be “hopeless and futile.”
Under the Weather, LLC v. United States, 2024 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
“at 5; see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.26 (a). 4 The statute and Customs’ regulations require that Customs provide “reasons” when Customs denies a protest but not when Customs allows a protest.”
N. Tool & Equip. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 161 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
“CBP will only permit further review of protests that are “valid,” see 19 C.F.R. 174.26(a), and it acknowledged that Northern Tool’s protest was valid by accepting Northern Tool’s request for further review, stating explicitly “inasmuch as Northern Tool protests the liquidation,…”
Esso Stand. Oil Co. (PR) v. United States, 2007 CIT 171 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
“) Those protests were referred to Customs’ Commercial Rulings Division for further review, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.26 (b). Customs denied all three protests on March 18, 1998, on the basis that the payment of the HMT and liquidation of the entries without refund of HMT did…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 174.26(a) — 1 case
N. Tool & Equip. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 161 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
“CBP will only permit further review of protests that are “valid,” see 19 C.F.R. 174.26(a), and it acknowledged that Northern Tool’s protest was valid by accepting Northern Tool’s request for further review, stating explicitly “inasmuch as Northern Tool protests the liquidation,…”
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.