(a) Issuance of notice. Notice of denial of a protest shall be mailed to any person filing a protest or his agent in all cases other than those in which accelerated disposition was requested and in which no action has been taken within 30 days after the date of mailing of the request. The notice shall include a statement of the reasons for the denial, as well as a statement informing the protesting party of the right to file a civil action contesting the denial of the protest under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514). For purposes of section 515(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1515(a)), the date appearing on such notice shall be deemed the date on which such notice was mailed.
(b) Substitution of persons designated to receive notice. The importer of record or consignee may give notice to CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically, instructing that notice of denial of any protest involving merchandise imported in his name or on his behalf shall be mailed to a person other than the person filing such protest or the designee of such person. Such notice of substitution shall be filed in quadruplicate and shall identify the protest by number and date of receipt. Notice of denial of a protest shall be mailed to the substituted person so designated only if the notice of substitution is received by the CBP prior to a denial by him of such protest.
(c) Notification of payment of increased duties. The Center director shall note on the notice of denial of a protest the payment of all liquidated duties, charges, or exactions, if he has actual knowledge of such payment at the time that the protest is denied.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 80-271, 45 FR 75642, Nov. 17, 1980; CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Atteberry v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
· cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 174.30 (a) (2000). In light of those authorities, the Government argues, it “must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Customs mailed [the] notice of the denial of [the Importer’s] protest on April 3, 2002, the date on which the protest was…”
Wally Packaging, Inc. v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 1408 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
“§ 1515 (a), 19 C.F.R. § 174.30 (1981). The response indicates that the protest was denied, states the reason for the denial, and informs plaintiff of its right to bring a civil action in this court.”
United States v. Desiree Int'l U. S. A., Ltd., 497 F. Supp. 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
“29 , and a notice of any denial is to be mailed to the protesting party, 19 C.F.R. § 174.30 . Further, all decisions on protest reviews are required to be published or made available for public inspection within 120 days of issuance.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1059 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
“§ 1515 (a) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.30 (a) (1989). Plaintiff asserts that this failure is fatal error and, as a result, the notices of denial are invalid and the 180 day statute of limitations did not begin to run upon mailing.”
W. Power Sports, Inc. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
“In fact, the only regulation referenced by Western Power is 19 C.F.R. § 174.30 , the procedure governing protest denials.”
Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 2× “Alcan filed a request for accelerated disposition on September 11, 2000, 14 as evidenced by the date on the Certified Mail Receipt. See Certified Mail Receipt for Article Sent from Alcan Aluminum Corp.”
F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Int'l Trade 299 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 1515 (a) and 19 C.F.R. 174.30. Section 1515(a) provides “Notice of the denial shall be mailed in the form and manner prescribed by the Secretary.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. United States, 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 253 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
“§ 1515 (a) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.30 (a) (1989). Plaintiff asserts that this failure is fatal error and, as a result, the notices of denial are invalid and the 180 day statute of limitations did not begin to run upon mailing.”
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.