Has the Court of International Trade Gone Nuts?

No.  I just say that to amuse the 12-year old boy inside me.  

In reality, the Court did issue an opinion on the classification of Mrs. May's All Natural Almond Crunch, which is made in China from California almonds.  The almonds are sent to China for various processes including sorting, roasting, and combining with other ingredients for make the crunch.  

Whenever anyone sends U.S. products abroad for processing and return, it is worth considering whether a Chapter 98 provision provides a partial duty exemption for the value of the U.S. origin components.  Unfortunately, there are strings attached to those provisions.

The tariff item at issue in this case was 9802.00.50, which provides for "Articles returned to the United States after having been exported to be advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means . . . Articles exported for repairs or alterations: . . .
9802.00.50 Other . . . ."  The tricky part is that for this to work, you need to export X and import repaired or altered X, not Y.  So, the Court held that almonds were exported and almond crunch was imported.  This not a mere alteration (clearly the almonds were not "repaired").  Since it was not an alteration, the decision went to the government.

The other commonly used tariff item for U.S. goods returning is 9802.00.80.  The trick with that one is that the exported articles need to be ready for use in assembly without further manufacturing and not subjected to processes abroad other than assembly and operations incidental to assembly such as cleaning, painting, and lubricating.

If you are in the trenches and using 9802.00.80, be advised that your operations should be limited to assembly (i.e., the physical joining of two or more parts), cleaning, lubricating, painting, and things reasonably like those three exemplars.  Customs has some regs with examples of what they consider to be incidental to assembly.

Back to the case at hand.  Does 9802.00.80 possibly apply to to the almond crunch?  

No.  It's not assembly to coat the almonds in sugar and other materials.  Assembly is accomplished with screws, nails, glue, welding guns, and the like.  When I find almond crunch that is welded together, I'll reconsider my analysis.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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 t...
Read more