HQ 224043: Application For Further Review Protest No. 3001-92-100406; Interest applicable to Antidumping Duties when there is a waiver of cash deposit for a de minimis margin; 19 U.S.C. 1677g(a); 19 CFR 353.24

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 224043

                        December 17, 1992

LIQ-4-01-CO:R:C:E  224043 JRS

CATEGORY:  Liquidation/Protest

District Director of Customs
U.S.Customs Service
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98104-1049

RE:  Application For Further Review Protest No. 3001-92-100406;
     Interest applicable to Antidumping Duties when there is a
     waiver of cash deposit for a de minimis margin; 19 U.S.C.
     1677g(a); 19 CFR 353.24

Dear Sir:

     The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office
for further review.  We have considered the points raised, and
our decision follows.

FACTS:

     This protest involves an entry filed on April 22, 1987, for
a Sharp brand (JC-AVI(BK) AM/FM stereo cassette tape player with
a 2.5 inch LCD B/W TV receiver and head phone under item
685.4908, Tariff Schedules of the United States.  The
merchandise, television receivers (monochrome and color) from
Japan, is the subject of an affirmative antidumping finding (T.D.
71-76) published by the Department of the Treasury (36 FR 4597,
March 10, 1971).     

     Pursuant to the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, all
outstanding dumping findings were made subject to administrative
review by the Department of Commerce (45 FR 20511).  These
reviews form the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties
on reviewed entries and for cash deposits, including interest, on
future entries.

     On April 19, 1991, Commerce published the final results of
its antidumping duty administrative review (A-588-015) pertaining
to television receivers, monochrome and color, from Japan (56 FR
16069).  That review revealed that for the time period of
03/01/87 -- 02/29/88, one manufacturer/exporter, Sharp,
experienced a dumping margin of 38.26 percent.  Customs was
instructed to assess antidumping duties against all subject
entries of said merchandise at the rate of 38.26 percent ad
valorem.  

     Customs issued liquidation instructions to all field offices
on March 11, 1992.  The liquidation instructions (Message No.
2071113, dated 03/11/92) required interest on overpayments or
underpayments of the amounts deposited as estimated antidumping
duties, calculated from the date of payment of estimated duties
through the date of liquidation, at the rate in effect under
section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for such
period.  Accordingly, Customs liquidated the merchandise on 
April 3, 1992, with a per-unit dumping duty of $133.57, and
assessed interest on the underpayment of estimated antidumping
duties from the date of entry through the date of liquidation. 
At the date of entry, April 22, 1987, a cash deposit of 0.30
percent was determined; however, a deposit was waived since the
margin was de minimis. 

     The protestant (importer) contends that there is no
requirement for the deposit of estimated antidumping duties and
that no deposit was made.  Therefore, Customs has no authority to
collect interest on an underpayment of antidumping duties.  The
protestant requests a reliquidation with a refund of the interest
paid of $244,130.71.


ISSUE:

     Whether interest is owed on an underpayment of antidumping
duties when the cash deposit at the time of entry was 0.30
percent and, as such, the cash deposit requirement was waived
because the margin was de minimis. 

     
LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Section 778 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1677g(a)), provided that interest shall be payable on
overpayments and underpayments of amounts deposited on
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on and after the date of publication of an antidumping duty order
or the date of a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921.
     
     The words "amounts deposited" refer only to cash deposits of
estimated antidumping duties upon entry and not to other kinds of
security such as a bond; consequently, interest would accrue only
from the time that the deposit of cash was required, and would
not be retroactive to the time of entry under bond.  Interest is
collectable only on cash deposits. 

     Section 353.24(c) of the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR
353.24(c), states:

     The Secretary will instruct the Customs Service to calculate
     interest for each entry from the date that a cash deposit is
     required to be deposited for the entry through the date of
     liquidation of the entry.

     The question becomes whether a cash deposit may be said to
be required when Commerce waived the cash deposit because the
margin was de minimis.  At the date of entry, April 22, 1987, the
antidumping duty rate in effect was the 1981 administrative
review (46 FR 30163, June 5, 1981) finding of a 0.30 percent
margin for Sharp.  Commerce reported that "[b]ecause the weighted
average margins listed above for Hitachi, Sharp and Mitsubishi
are less than 0.5 percent and therefore de minimis, the
Department shall not require cash deposits on those
manufacturers' entries (46 FR 30166)."  
  
     Liability for duties accrues upon importation of the
merchandise.  19 CFR 141.1.  Section 141.105 of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 141.105) authorizes the importer of record to
estimate and to deposit with the district director, in whole or
in part, the probable amount of unpaid duties which will be found
due on an entire entry.  Antidumping duties are treated as
regular customs duties, except with respect to drawback (see 19
U.S.C. 1677h).  See e.g., C.S.D. 82-46.  As a result, an importer
may make a pre-liquidation deposit of estimated antidumping
duties under 19 CFR 141.105.  If an importer fails to deposit
estimated antidumping duties in an amount sufficient to cover any
antidumping duties that are eventually determined to be due by
Commerce, interest will accrue on an underpayment.  A requirement
of a deposit of zero dollars is a requirement of a cash deposit. 

     Commerce considers a de minimis margin to be equivalent to a
zero dollar cash deposit.  Although the cash deposit requirement
of 0.30 percent was waived, the entry was nevertheless subject to
a cash deposit requirement, albeit de minimis, and as such,
interest would be owing to the government on any underpayment at
the date of liquidation.  As an antidumping duty of 38.26 percent
was ultimately determined, interest is owed on the underpayment
of duties on this entry represented by the difference between the
amount deposited (i.e., zero dollars) and the amount ultimately
due.


HOLDING:

     Interest is owed on the underpayment of estimated
antidumping duties for the April 22, 1987 entry.  Despite the
fact that the cash deposit was waived in this instance because
the margin was de minimis, a de minimis margin is equivalent to a
zero dollar cash deposit and interest is collectable on it.

     Accordingly, you are directed to deny the protest.  A copy
of this decision should be furnished to the protestant in order
to satisfy the notice requirement of 19 CFR 174.30(a).

                               Sincerely,




                               John A. Durant, Director