HQ 955396: Application for Further Review of Protest 1001-93-106519;Civil Aircraft Agreement; Blanket Certificate; Importer; UltimateConsignee; 19 CFR 10,183(c)(2); 19 CFR 101.1(1)

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 955396
                                
                         June 20, 1994

LIQ-9-01 CO:R:C:E 955396 SLR

CATEGORY: Liquidation

Regional Commissioner of U.S. Customs
New York Region
6 World Trade Center, Room 716
New York, NY 10048

Attn: Head, Protest and Control Section

RE:  Application for Further Review of Protest 1001-93-106519;
Civil Aircraft Agreement; Blanket Certificate; Importer; Ultimate
Consignee; 19 CFR 10,183(c)(2); 19 CFR 101.1(1)

Dear Sir:

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

FACTS:

    On December 21, 1992, certain aircraft parts were entered for
repair under subheading 8803.30.0010, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) by customhouse broker
Expeditors International. The importer of record for the entry
was Singapore Airlines (protestant).  The ultimate consignee was
Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut. Free entry was
claimed for the merchandise pursuant to the Agreement on Trade in
Civil Aircraft (CAA). Customs denied free entry because the
importer, Singapore Airlines, did not have a blanket certificate
on file with the district of entry and no entry-by-entry
certificate was attached to the entry summary. The merchandise
was liquidated at 3.7 percent ad valorem on July 7, 1993, and
this protest was timely filed on September 20, 1993.

    Protestant maintains that the ultimate consignee, Pratt &
Whitney, had on file with the district of entry a "civil aircraft
statement" and that this should satisfy import requirements for
the civil aircraft provisions.

ISSUE:

    Whether an ultimate consignee assigned to repair aircraft is
interchangeable with an importer concerning the criteria set
forth in 19 CFR 10.183(c)(2).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Title VI, Civil Aircraft Agreement, of the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979 (Sec. 601, P.L. 96-39, 93 Star. 144, 96th Cong., 1st
Sess. 1979), implemented the Agreement on Trade and Civil
Aircraft. This Agreement became effective in the United States on
January 1, 1980. On June 7, 1984, 19 CFR Part 10, was amended to
include section 10.183. This section provides for the duty-free
admission of civil aircraft parts for civil aircraft certified
for use in accordance with the provisions of General Note
3(c)(iv), HTSUSA.

    General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUSA, indicates that when
merchandise is entered under a tariff provision for which the
free rate ("C") for civil aircraft appears:

          [T]he importer shall file a written statement,
          accompanied by such supporting documentation as the
          Secretary of the Treasury may require, with the
          appropriate customs officer stating that the imported
          article has been imported for use in civil aircraft,
          that it will so be used and that the article has been
          approved for such use by the Administrator of the
          Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) or by an airworthiness
          authority in the country of exportation, if such
          approval is recognized by the FAA as an acceptable
          substitute for FAA certification, or that an
          application for approval for such use has been
          submitted to, and accepted by, the Administrator of the
          FAA. (Emphasis added.)

    Section 10,183(c)(2) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR
10.183(c)(2)), provides that the importer must submit at the time
of filing the entry summary a certification for each entry or a
blanket certification if more than one entry of civil aircraft
parts will be made within a 12-month period.  The blanket
certification will be valid for a period of one year from the
date of approval by the district director where the civil
aircraft parts will be entered. Failure to provide an entry-by-entry certificate at the time of filing the entry summary or to
have an approved blanket certification on file with the district
director in the district where the entry summary is filed shall
result in a dutiable entry.

    Protestant maintains that the ultimate consignee, Pratt &
Whitney, had on file a "civil aircraft statement" with the
district of entry and that this should satisfy the CAA import
requirements.

    An "importer" is the person primarily liable for the payment
of any duties on the merchandise, or an authorized agent acting
on its behalf. 19 CFR 101.1(1). Here, Singapore Airlines appears
as the importer of record on the entry summary for the civil
aircraft parts and is the party from whom the Customs bond was
posted. As such, it is the person primarily liable for the
payment of duties on the merchandise. A consignee can qualify as
an "importer" under 19 CFR 101.1(1). However, in this case, Pratt
& Whitney is the ultimate consignee, not the consignee, and thus
cannot qualify as an importer under the regulations.

    Section 24.11 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 24.11)
states that any increased or additional duties or taxes found due
upon liquidation shall be billed to the importer of record or to
the actual owner of the merchandise. Here, Singapore Airlines is
both the importer of record and the actual owner of the
merchandise. As indicated, the bond for the subject civil
aircraft parts is in the name of Singapore Airlines.  Apart from
any compensation owed Singapore Airlines for damage incurred
during repairs, the ultimate consignee Pratt & Whitney has no
legal responsibility for this merchandise.

    Protestant indicates that another repair facility and
ultimate consignee, Hamilton Standard, had on file a blanket
certificate for civil aircraft parts with the district of entry.
The subject entry documents and repair order, however, list only
Pratt & Whitney as the party to whom the merchandise was to be
delivered for repairs. Moreover, as indicated, an ultimate
consignee will not qualify as an importer under 19 CFR 101.1(1).

    Protestant maintains that since Pratt & Whitney and Hamilton
Standard are repair facilities, their "civil aircraft statements"
should satisfy the airworthiness requirements of the FAA. General
Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUSA, however, pertains to airworthiness
determinations made by either the FAA or an equivalent agency of
the exporting country deemed satisfactory by the FAA, not a
repair facility.

    Protestant comments that Singapore Airlines had on file a
blanket certificate for civil aircraft parts with the Customs
district in San Francisco. However, the Customs regulations are
clear that a blanket certificate must be on file in the district
where the entry is made by the time of entry summary. Singapore
Airlines did not have a blanket certificate on file with New York
Customs at the time of entry summary.  Therefore, Customs was
correct in liquidating the merchandise as fully dutiable.

HOLDING:

    The ultimate consignee is not interchangeable with the
importer concerning the criteria set forth in 19 CFR
10.183(c)(2). This protest should be denied.

    In accordance with Section 3A(ll)(b) of Customs Directive 099
3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject:  Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office, with
the Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the
date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance
with the decision must be accomplished prior to the mailing of
this decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the
Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the
decision available to customs personnel via the Customs Rulings
Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription
Service, Lexis, Freedom of Information Act and other public
access channels.

                              Sincerely,

                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division