tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post4573803033147444233..comments2024-03-20T00:33:13.961-05:00Comments on Customs Law: First Sale DataLarryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-91796498739043169282010-01-14T10:47:08.643-06:002010-01-14T10:47:08.643-06:00Oh, and despite our disagreement on this, I apprec...Oh, and despite our disagreement on this, I appreciate Retired Customs for his or her always insightful comments.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-25144385896966829632010-01-14T10:45:29.820-06:002010-01-14T10:45:29.820-06:00The third comment beat me to most of what I have t...The third comment beat me to most of what I have to say. It is important to keep in mind that first sale only applies when it can be shown through the documents or other objective means that the sale from the producer to the middleman was for export to the United States. The leading case on this involved suits made to order for U.S. customers. Clearly, the suit was sold for export even though it was sold to a middleman. <br /><br />In the bigger picture, it is up to the Courts to determine the meaning of the law. The Court did that and found that what Congress put on the books permitted valuation based on a bona fide sale to a middleman where the sale is for export. Customs can disagree, but should accept that. It strikes me that the best way for CBP to approach this is to go to Congress for the change.<br /><br />That said, I have read National Cable v. Brand X. I understand that agencies can re-interpret ambiguous laws. The question for the next Court to review this is whether 1402a is ambiguous on this point.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-34604373674215135162010-01-13T14:54:19.964-06:002010-01-13T14:54:19.964-06:00Whenever a customs official says "it's no...Whenever a customs official says "it's not the revenue, it's the principle",. . . it's the revenue. Sale for export isn't legal fiction, it's law, and it's been around for awhile. The only thing that surpised me about the report was how few entities are using it and how small the affected volume of trade seems to be, perhaps because of marginal benefits due to declining tariff rates. I agree the report won't solve much politically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-26396320512602964122010-01-11T23:03:54.977-06:002010-01-11T23:03:54.977-06:00time.
(Left out the final word to comment above.)...time.<br /><br />(Left out the final word to comment above.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-29056811262720943042010-01-11T22:59:07.040-06:002010-01-11T22:59:07.040-06:00Larry -
The "first sale" scenario is si...Larry -<br /><br />The "first sale" scenario is simply bad legal fiction since the first sale is NOT a sale for export to the US. This claptrap should never have occurred in the first place.<br /><br />It's immaterial how many importers use it, they are all really cheating.<br /><br />It's not the revenue loss so much as a principle of consistency that this legal fiction be abolished.<br /><br />Of course the US should use CIF valuation on all imports, like most of the rest of the world; but that's another argument for another.<br /><br />Your faithful RETIRED Customs officer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com