United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule

faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers

faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 2004 HQ Rulings > HQ 546690 - HQ 548196 > HQ 548096

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 548096

---

June 4, 2002

RR:IT:VA 548096 EK

CATEGORY: VALUATION

Port Director
Miami Service Port

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest Nos. 5201-00-100276, 5201-00-100466, 5201-00-100503, 5201-00-100571, 5201-00-100601; Sara Lee Knit Products

Dear Port Director:

This is in regard to the Application for Further Review of the protests noted above. The basis of appraisement for the majority of the importer’s merchandise is computed value, section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA). There is no dispute that computed value is the appropriate method of appraisement. The importer is protesting the figures used to appraise the merchandise pursuant to computed value.

FACTS:

The entries under protest were liquidated at the entered values. You state that five protests were filed for hundreds of entries. The entries involved merchandise for the entire year, manufactured by approximately 19 manufacturers. However, the protests do not cover all of the entries for each manufacturer for the entire fiscal year. The importer’s position is that the entries should not have been liquidated at these entered values because the figures did not represent the actual computed value of the imported merchandise. The importer claims that entered values were based on estimated or standard costs which were used by Customs to liquidate the merchandise, and that the actual costs for the fiscal year 1999 were re-calculated and submitted to Customs at a later date. In addition, the importer requests that a refund for the entire year, determined through the cost submissions, be given through these protested entries.

The importer has not provided computed value information regarding each entry for the fiscal year. Rather, the information provided on the cost submissions submitted to Customs reflect cost figures applying to merchandise assembled by a various manufacturers. There is no breakdown on an entry by entry basis.

ISSUE:

Whether Customs properly appraised the merchandise pursuant to computed value based upon the value declared at the time of entry.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Customs fixed the value of the imported merchandise based on the entered values as provided by the importer. No computed value information on an entry-by-entry basis has been submitted, and therefore, the importer has not provided sufficient information to appraise the merchandise using computed value figures other than those provided at the time of entry.

Customs does not have the legal authority to reduce an importer’s current duty liability to account for alleged prior duty overpayments which were not protested by the importer. See, HQ 547037 dated July 12, 1999.

Insufficient information exists to conclude that the merchandise was improperly appraised by Customs.

HOLDING:

The protest should be DENIED. In accordance with Section 3A11(b) of Customs Directive 099 35500-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to mail this decision, together with Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision.

Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to
the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.customs.ustreas.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.

Sincerely,

Virginia L. Brown, Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling