H352012

H352012 December 16, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H352012 SAB CATEGORY: Entry Port Director San Juan Field Office #1 La Puntilla St. San Juan, PR 00901 RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 490925100854; Able Sales Company, Inc.; Tariff-Rate Quota Dear Director, This is in response to the application for further review (“AFR”) of protest no. 490925100854, received by our office on August 26, 2025. Able Sales Company, Inc. (“Able Sales”) protests your office’s liquidation of entry no. XXX-XXXX744-5 at the over-quota rate for raw sugar from Panama. We have considered the points raised by your office and the protestant. Our decision is set forth below. FACTS: In March of 2018, Able Sales imported 299,376 kilograms of raw sugar from Panama that was subject to a tariff-rate quota pursuant to U.S. Note 36 of Subchapter XXII, Chapter 98, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) (2018). The quota, which was open from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, provided that the aggregate amount of certain originating goods under the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) of Panama in the 2018 calendar year was limited to 6,420 metric tons. The quota includes raw sugar classifiable under subheading 1701.14.50, HTSUS. On March 1, 2018, Able Sales filed entry no. XXX-XXXX744-5. The entry was filed as a type 02, which delineates entries that contain quota-class merchandise. The entry claimed the in- quota duty rate of 0% under subheading 9822.09.18, HTSUS, for raw sugar classified under subheading 1701.14.5000, HTSUSA (Annotated). Payment of estimated duties, taxes, and fees was tendered via statement processing. The cargo arrived on March 3, 2018, and was released on March 5, 2018. When Able Sales filed entry no. XXX-XXXX744-5, the entry summary (U.S. Customs Border Protection (“CBP”) Form 7501) was not accompanied by a Certificate of Quota Eligibility (“CQE”). On June 19, 2018, due to the missing CQE, the entry summary was rejected. On June 21, 2018, Able Sales uploaded a CQE to the Document Imaging System (“DIS”) within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”). Despite the submission of the CQE, the entry summary remained in rejected status until January 30, 2025. On January 30, 2025, CBP changed the entry to type 01 and removed the in-quota HTSUS subheading, 9822.09.18, from the entry. On January 31, 2025, CBP liquidated entry no. XXX-XXXX744-5 at the rate of 33.87 cents per kilogram in accordance with the ordinary duty rate applicable to raw sugar classifiable under subheading 1701.14.5000, HTSUSA. On the same day, CBP issued a bill to Able Sales for the duties, taxes, and fees owed. On July 22, 2025, Able Sales filed protest no. 490925100854 to challenge CBP’s liquidation of entry no. XXX-XXXX744-5 at the over-quota duty rate. Able Sales argues that the subject entry deemed liquidated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a). Specifically, Able Sales asserts that even though the entry summary was rejected, the merchandise should have been considered entered on March 1, 2018 - the date the entry summary was filed. Able Sales concludes that because CBP failed to liquidate within one year of the entry summary filing date, the entry had deemed liquidated in 2019 at the rate asserted by Able Sales. ISSUE: Whether CBP properly liquidated the subject entry at the over-quota rate. LAW AND ANALYSIS: As an initial matter, we find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3), this protest was timely filed on July 21, 2025, “within 180 days from the date of liquidation.” We also find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514(a)(2) and 1514(a)(5), a protestable issue was raised by challenging CBP’s decision regarding “the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable” for the raw sugar and the timeliness of CBP’s liquidation. Finally, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a), we find that further review of this protest is warranted because it alleges facts that are inconsistent with a decision made by CBP in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H326779 (Apr. 15, 2025). Able Sales asserts that entry no.XXX-XXXX744-5 deemed liquidated because CBP failed to liquidate within one year from the date of entry. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1): Unless an entry of merchandise for consumption is extended under subsection (b) of this section or suspended as required by statute or court order . . . an entry of merchandise for consumption not liquidated within 1 year from — (A) the date of entry of such merchandise . . . 2 shall be deemed liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted by the importer of record. This statutory deemed liquidation deadline is intended to “increase certainty in the customs process for importers, surety companies, and other third parties with a potential liability relating to a customs transaction.” HQ 224162 (May 5, 1992) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-788, at 832 (1978)). Accordingly, an entry which is not liquidated by CBP within a year from the date of entry is deemed liquidated unless liquidation is suspended pursuant to statute or court order, or CBP extends the timeframe for liquidation. We must thus determine the legal date of entry for the quota-class merchandise to determine whether its liquidation was timely. The time of entry for merchandise that is entered for consumption is established in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 141.68. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(d), the time of entry for quota-class merchandise “will be the time of presentation of the entry summary or withdrawal for consumption in proper form, with estimated duties attached, or if the entry/entry summary information and a valid scheduled statement date . . . have been successfully received by CBP via the Automated Broker Interface.” Presentation is essential for quota-class merchandise because it establishes quota priority and quota status if made in proper form. See 19 C.F.R. § 132.11(a). Quota priority is the precedence granted to an entry of quota-class merchandise over other entries of merchandise subject to the same quota. 19 C.F.R. § 132.1(f). Quota status is the standing which entitles quota- class merchandise to admission under an absolute quota, or to a reduced rate of duty under a tariff-rate quota, or to any other quota benefit. 19 C.F.R. § 132.1(g). To prevent circumvention of quota, importers must comply with strict presentation requirements in order to obtain quota priority and status. See HQ H326779 (Apr. 15, 2025) (citing HQ 229188 (Mar. 4, 2002)). A quota entry will not be deemed presented “for purposes of quota priority and . . . quota status” if not in proper form. 19 C.F.R. § 132.11(b); see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 132.1(d); 132.11(a). For example, presentation will not be in proper form for purposes of quota priority and status if the merchandise is misclassified, the asserted duty is incorrect, or estimated duties are not attached. See generally DMV USA, Inc. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 970, 978 (2003). Quota priority or status will also not attach to merchandise when the entry summary is presented without any requisite certificates of eligibility. See HQ H326779; HQ H229480 (June 21, 2002). See generally United States v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co., 422 F. Supp. 3d 1328, 1351-1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019) (finding that an importer’s failure to provide CQEs rendered the imported merchandise ineligible for quota treatment). Pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 2011.103(a), “no sugar that is the product of a foreign country may be permitted entry unless at the time of entry the person entering such sugar presents to the appropriate customs official a valid and properly executed certificate of quota eligibility for such sugar.” Accordingly, for certain sugar products subject to quota, presentation of an entry summary will not be in proper form unless it is accompanied by a valid CQE. CBP previously addressed the significance of failing to timely file a CQE for quota-class merchandise in HQ 229480, dated June 21, 2002. In that case, raw sugar from Co

As an initial matter, we find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3), this protest was timely filed on July 21, 2025, “within 180 days from the date of liquidation.” We also find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514(a)(2) and 1514(a)(5), a protestable issue was raised by challenging CBP’s decision regarding “the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable” for the raw sugar and the timeliness of CBP’s liquidation. Finally, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a), we find that further review of this protest is warranted because it alleges facts that are inconsistent with a decision made by CBP in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H326779 (Apr. 15, 2025). Able Sales asserts that entry no.XXX-XXXX744-5 deemed liquidated because CBP failed to liquidate within one year from the date of entry. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1): Unless an entry of merchandise for consumption is extended under subsection (b) of this section or suspended as required by statute or court order . . . an entry of merchandise for consumption not liquidated within 1 year from — (A) the date of entry of such merchandise . . . 2 

 shall be deemed liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted by the importer of record. This statutory deemed liquidation deadline is intended to “increase certainty in the customs process for importers, surety companies, and other third parties with a potential liability relating to a customs transaction.” HQ 224162 (May 5, 1992) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-788, at 832 (1978)). Accordingly, an entry which is not liquidated by CBP within a year from the date of entry is deemed liquidated unless liquidation is suspended pursuant to statute or court order, or CBP extends the timeframe for liquidation. We must thus determine the legal date of entry for the quota-class merchandise to determine whether its liquidation was timely. The time of entry for merchandise that is entered for consumption is established in accordance with 19 C.F.R. §