Protest No. 2809-91-100129; sports footwear; men's sneakers with uppers of leather and textiles and soles of plastics or Heading 6403; Heading 6404
Active· CBP ruling HQ 089291· Issued 1991-09-30
Ruling text
HQ 089291
September 30, 1991
CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 089291 NLP
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.20
District Director
United States Customs Service
555 Battery Street
P.O. Box 2450
San Francisco CA 94126
RE: Protest No. 2809-91-100129; sports footwear; men's sneakers
with uppers of leather and textiles and soles of plastics or
Heading 6403; Heading 6404
Dear District Director:
This is our decision on Application for Further Review of
protest No. 2809-91-100129, dated January 24, 1991. The issue
presented is whether various styles of men's footwear are
properly classified in subheading 6404.11.2030, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provides
for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics, sports
footwear, having uppers of which over 50 percent of the external
surface area (including any leather accessories or reinforcements
such as those mentioned in note 4(a) to this chapter) is leather,
for men. Counsel for the protestant claims the footwear should
be classified in subheading 6403.19.45, HTSUSA, which provides
for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or
composition leather and uppers of leather, sports footwear,
other, for men, youths and boys, other.
Protests against decisions of the appropriate Customs
officers must be in conformity with applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements. Under 19 U.S.C. Section 1514(c)(1),
a protest of a decision under subsection (a) of Section 1514 must
set forth distinctly and specifically each decision as to which
protest is made. See, United States v. Parksmith Corp., 514 F.2d
1052, 62 CCPA 76 (1975); American Commerce Co. v. United States,
173 F. Supp. 812 (Cust. Ct, 1959); United States v. E.H. Bailey &
Co., 32 CCPA 89, C.A.D. 291 (1945). In addition, section 174.13
(a)(6) of the Customs Regulations requires that a protest contain
the nature of, and justification for the objection set forth
distinctly and specifically with respect to each decision.
The scope of review in a protest filed under 19 U.S.C. 1514
is limited to the administrative record. Customs will consider
all relevant allegations that are supported by competent
evidence. In acting on a protest, however, Customs lacks the
legal authority to assume facts and arguments that are not
presented and, therefore not in the official record.
In this case, the protest stated that detailed legal
arguments would be submitted. Despite numerous requests by
Customs, samples of the footwear and the above mentioned legal
arguments were never submitted by the protestant. Therefore,
protestant has submitted no evidence in support of his claim, nor
is there other evidence of record from which we can independently
determine the validity of the claim.
Based on protestant's failure to comply with the
requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1) and 19 CFR 174.13(a)(6),
this protest should be denied. A copy of this decision should be
attached to the Customs Form 19 and mailed to the protestant as
part of the notice of action on the protest.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 089291, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:21:38Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.