Application for Further Review of Protest 4601-03-102840 Dear Port Director: This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 4601-03-102840, filed by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, on behalf of Oved Apparel. In written submissions and in a telephone conference between members of my staff and counsel for the protestant on January 6, 2004, the protestant claims the subject merchandise is eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA. The protest is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) classification of eight entries of men’s and boy’s knit pullovers under subheadings 6110.20.2065 and men’s knit shirts under subheading 6105.10.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Reasoning
Application for Further Review of Protest 4601-03-102840 Dear Port Director: This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 4601-03-102840, filed by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, on behalf of Oved Apparel. In written submissions and in a telephone conference between members of my staff and counsel for the protestant on January 6, 2004, the protestant claims the subject merchandise is eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA. The protest is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) classification of eight entries of men’s and boy’s knit pullovers under subheadings 6110.20.2065 and men’s knit shirts under subheading 6105.10.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Cite this ruling
CBP Ruling 966762 (6110202065): Application for Further Review of Protest 4601-03-102840 Dear Port Director: This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 4601-03-102840, filed by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, on behalf of Oved Apparel. In written submissions and in a telephone conference between members of my staff and counsel for the protestant on January 6, 2004, the protestant claims the subject merchandise is eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA. The protest is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) classification of eight entries of men’s and boy’s knit pullovers under subheadings 6110.20.2065 and men’s knit shirts under subheading 6105.10.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Paste this into a product's override reason when citing this ruling as justification for a classification.
Other rulings for HS6 611020
The tariff classification of a woman’s sweater from Hong Kong
The tariff classification of three women’s knit garments from Canada
The tariff classification of a cheerleader’s outfit for toddlers’ wear from the Philippines
The tariff classification of three women’s pullovers from Canada
The tariff classification of a woman’s cardigan from Hong Kong