New Stuff

Yes, I am still here. Swamped at work. You've heard it all before.

Here are a couple interesting things that crossed my desk recently.

First, HQ W968392 asks the fascinating question of whether a stone "Ushabti of Neferhotep," dating from 1479-1400 BC, are properly classifiable in heading 9703 as original sculptures, 9705 as a collectors piece of historical, archaeological or ethnographic interest or in heading 9706, HTSUS, which provides for antiques of an age exceeding one hundred years, might be more applicable. Good question.

It turns out that because this was a relatively common type of object in ancient Egypt, it lacks the quality of artistic originality necessary for 9703. Also, while it is clearly an antique, Customs held that it was better described as a collectors piece of archaeological or ethnographic interest.

It must be late, because for some reason, I find this fascinating. I would have loved to have been at the meetings with the client, Sotheby's, and Customs.

Second, someone read Tradewind Farms and let me know if I am crazy. It seems to me that the Court of International Trade just made it impossible for anyone to protest Customs' failure to treat something as classifiable in an actual use provision unless the claim was made at the time of entry or pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 10.134. The reasoning seems to be that there are regulations for making these claims and they need to be followed.

Except that they don't. If an importer fails to make a GSP claim at the time of entry and can later prove that GSP applied, it can file a protest. Same goes for 9801 and 9802. Again, it is late and I may be missing something. Is there something special about actual use provisions that prevents Customs from correcting a liquidation based on proof of actual use? Would a Supplemental Information Letter work for an unliquidated entry?

Lastly, I have started riding my bike to work again. I hope to do that about three times a week. Its good for me, its good for you too because my carbon footprint is decreased. Except that my train still runs without me, meaning I waste that fuel by creating an empty seat. On the other hand, today was my third bike commute and I am aching all over. And, I only rode home today. Go figure. Some good pictures of Chicago area biking are here and here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry, you're not crazy. The CIT is just saying that an actual use provision classification is a different animal, and
"Thus, under this regulation it is not
sufficient that an importer intend a particular use for its
merchandise, it must demonstrate that intention at the time of
entry by following specific procedures." ("This regulation" is here referring to 19 C.F.R. § 10.134.)
The lesson here is, if you want to classify an import under a lower duty rate available to you through an actual use provision, make sure you file a written declaration of actual use at the time of entry. Otherwise you're stuck with whatever classification CBP decides to give you. But I'll bet you're right, that if Tradewind Farms filed a PEA or SIL, they could have got around that procedural requirement. It sounds to me like they just weren't paying attention.
Oh, and interesting bit on the Egyptian artifact. While the distinction between "antiques of an age exceeding 100 years" and "a collector's piece of historical, archeological or ethnographic interest" is somewhat artificial, it still feels like the proper classification. The word "antique" seems to imply that the object still has some practical value (though this isn't always the case) whereas "artifact" seems to imply something that is solely used for display. And very old, older than an antique.
Lastly, at least you live in a city that has a useful mass transit system. Here in Houston, if you don't have a car, you're not going anywhere.
May 14, 2007, 10:59:00 AM
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

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more