HQ 543912: Internal Advice No. 47/86

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 543912

                                        April 19, 1988

          CLA-2 CO:R:CV:V  543912 EK

          CATEGORY:  Valuation

          Area Director of Customs
          New York Seaport, New York

          RE:  Internal Advice No. 47/86

          Dear Sir:

                This is in reference to an internal advice request
          initiated through counsel, on behalf of a certain importer.

                There are 13 entries which are unliquidated.  In addition,
          there are 49 entries which are subject to claims for
          reliquidation pursuant to section 520(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
          1930.  The importer claims that all the entries are subject to
          appraisement pursuant to deductive value, section 402(d) of the
          Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of
          1979 (TAA; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d)).

                This internal advice response will only address the
          valuation of the unliquidated entries.

                The merchandise consists of baseball caps and baseballs.
          It was determined that transaction value pursuant to section
          402(b) was not applicable since the price of the merchandise was
          effected by the relationship between the parties.

                With respect to the baseball caps, an audit to determine
          the feasibility of deductive value was conducted.  The auditors
          determined that adequate documentation was not available to
          substantiate the deductive value data submitted.  The audit was
          suspended, and it was subsequently determined that a transaction
          value of identical or similar merchandise pursuant to section
          402(c) was available, thereby eliminating the necessity to obtain
          further substantiation of the deductive value information.  






















                                        - 2 -


                No specific information pertaining to the claimed section
          402(c), transaction value of identical or similar merchandise
          appraisement, has been submitted to Headquarters.  If in fact a
          section 402(c) appraisement is available, then neither Customs
          nor the importer have the authority to disregard it and
          appraisement under this provision would be appropriate.

                If transaction value and transaction value of identical or
          similar merchandise cannot be determined, then the customs value
          will be based upon deductive value, unless the importer has
          elected computed value.  With respect to the instant situation,
          nothing in the submitted material demonstrates that the importer
          has elected the application of computed value before deductive
          value.

                Counsel for the importer has agreed to provide to the
          appraising officer the documentation necessary to appraise the
          merchandise pursuant to deductive value.  Upon receipt of the
          necessary information, and assuming it meets the statutory
          requirements of deductive value pursuant to section 402(d), then
          appraisement pursuant to that section is proper.

                Regarding the appraisement of the baseballs, although no
          claim has been made that a transaction value of identical or
          similar merchandise pursuant to section 402(c) exists, it is
          Customs position that the documentation with respect to deductive
          value has not been substantiated.  Again, as indicated above,
          counsel has agreed to supply the necessary information.
          Subsequent to receipt of the documentation, and assuming it meets
          the statutory requirements of deductive value pursuant to section
          402(d), then appraisement of the baseballs pursuant to deductive
          value is proper as well.

                                        Sincerely,




                                        John Durant
                                        Acting Director, Commercial
                                        Rulings Division