us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-544167•HQ 544167: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3801-5-001300
HQ 544167: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3801-5-001300
us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-544167HQ 544167: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3801-5-001300Guidance
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 544167
April 5, 1988
CLA-2 CO:R:CV:V 544167 EK
CATEGORY: Valuation
District Director of Customs
Detroit, Michigan
RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest
No. 3801-5-001300
Dear Sir:
This protest was filed against your decision in the
liquidation of Entry No. 84-265184 dated September 26, 1984. The
protesting party is disputing the inclusion of foreign inland
freight in the transaction value of imported merchandise pursuant
to section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)).
FACTS:
The above-referenced protest concerns the dutiability of
alleged foreign inland freight charges incurred upon shipping
cold-rolled steel coils manufactured in East Germany and sold by
a West German steel company.
The importer states that the inland charges from the
East/West German border to Hamburg are a deductible item from
transaction value. The importer indicates that the consumption
entry with respect to the merchandise incorrectly stated West
Germany when, in fact, the country of exportation should have
been East Germany.
The protestant claims that the steel was destined for the
United States at the time it left the East German mill. Customs
is of the opinion that the appraised value should be based upon
the terms of sale FOB Hamburg.
- 2 -
In this case, the invoice indicates a sale from Klockner
Stahl, West Germany to Klockner Inc., New York. The invoice
states that the risk of loss passes to the importer in Hamburg,
not at the East German mill.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Transaction value is defined in section 402(b) of the TAA
as the "price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when
sold for exportation to the United States . . . " . The term
"price actually paid or payable" is further defined in section
402(b)(4)(A) as:
. . . the total payment (whether direct or
indirect, . . . ) made, or to be made, for
imported merchandise by the buyer to, or for
the benefit of, the seller.
In this case, it is our conclusion that for purposes of
determining transaction value, the merchandise was sold for
exportation to the United States from Hamburg, West Germany.
There is no evidence available to substantiate the importer's
claim that the goods were "sold" for exportation to the United
States from the East German mill.
HOLDING:
In view of the foregoing, the protest should be denied in
full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19,
Notice of Action, to be sent to the protestant.
Sincerely,
John Durant
Acting Director, Commercial
Rulings Division
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.