Transaction Value: A Royal Pain

Royalties always need to be added to the reported value to make transaction value.

Well, maybe. As we lawyers like to say, it depends.

Let's start with the law because that is what we are supposed to do. The law says that transaction value should include:

any royalty or license fee related to the imported merchandise that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States.

That seems relatively clear. If the buyer has to pay a royalty or license fee to get the goods, it is part of the value of the merchandise and should be reported. But, it is not at all clear. Why? Because Customs has a regulation that says:

Royalties or license fees for patents covering processes to manufacture the imported merchandise generally will be dutiable. Royalties or license fees paid to third parties for use, in the United States, of copyrights and trademarks related to the imported merchandise generally will be considered selling expenses of the buyer and not dutiable. The dutiable status of royalties or license fees paid by the buyer will be determined in each case and will depend on (1) whether the buyer was required to pay them as a condition of sale of the merchandise for exportation to the United States, and (2) to whom and under what circumstances they were paid. Payments made by the buyer to a third party for the right to distribute or resell the imported merchandise will not be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise if the payments are not a condition of the sale of the merchandise for exportation to the United States.

For those of you who are really into this stuff, that is 19 C.F.R. § 152.103(f).

Traditionally, this was interpreted to mean that patent royalties were generally dutiable and copyright and trademark royalties were part of marketing expenses and, therefore, not part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

Customs, however, was not satisfied with that relatively easy-to-apply test. In 1993, following a ruling issued to Mattel, Customs published a general notice to the trade explaining its thinking on royalties and license fees. Under its new approach, Customs looks at each situation individually and asks three questions:

  1. Was the imported merchandise manufactured under patent?
  2. Was the royalty involved in the production or sale of the imported merchandise?
  3. Could the importer buy the product without paying the fee?

On Passover, they toss in a fourth, but that is not relevant here.

If the answers to the first two are positive and the third negative, Customs will lean very heavily toward dutiability of the royalty.

Like most things written in the English language, this gives lawyers lots of room for disagreement and opportunities for arguments. Usually, this will focus on the third question. After all, there are plenty of people willing to sell you something whether or not you pay the required royalty to a third party.

Another issue that comes up a lot is whether the royalty was paid to the seller or someone unrelated to one of them. The theory is that a royalty paid to the seller might just be an indirect payment that is dutiable on separate grounds.

Like I said, it all depends. And that is why you hire competent customs managers, in-house lawyers and, when necessary, people like me.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Wow, Customs lawyers are cool. How do I grow up to be one?
May 5, 2005, 4:01:00 PM
Freight Broker License said…
For applicability of transaction value in a given case, for assessment purposes, certain essential requirements should be satisfied.
May 10, 2012, 11:05:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance topic. So, let's
Read more