First Sale Data

Because I have previously discussed my views on the Customs and Border Protection proposal to interpret the valuation statute to do away with the so-called first sale rule, I probably should have mentioned that the International Trade Commission has published its congressionally mandated report on the topic. Note that the report is 255 pages, although the narrative is in the first 35 or so, the remainder is appendices and charts.

There is not a whole lot of data here. Here are some of the highlights based on data collected from September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008:
  • 23,520 entities reported using first sale for valuation (8.5% of all importers)
  • Of those using first sale, 14% were in textiles, footwear, and apparel; 12% were in metals and metal products; 10% were in machinery, transportation, and computers
  • $38.5 billion of trade was affected (2.4% of all imports)
  • Of all first sale trade, by value 31% was machinery, transportation, and computers; 15% was electrical equipment; and 14% was textiles, apparel, and footwear
An interesting piece of data that is missing is the revenue lost by application of the first sale rule. The ITC did not have access to data showing the difference between the declared value and the fully-loaded cost to the importer. As a result, it is still not clear whether this is a big revenue issue for the U.S.

I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the number of entities using first sale and the diversity of the industries involved. Beyond that, I am not sure what conclusions Customs or Congress will be able to draw from this study. Customs original position has less to do with revenue than with international consistency and its reading of the value code. It seems unlikely that this report will change any minds at Customs. That means the question may well end up back in Congress.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry -

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.

It's immaterial how many importers use it, they are all really cheating.

It's not the revenue loss so much as a principle of consistency that this legal fiction be abolished.

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.

Your faithful RETIRED Customs officer.
Jan 11, 2010, 10:59:00 PM
Anonymous said…
time.

(Left out the final word to comment above.)
Jan 11, 2010, 11:03:00 PM
Anonymous said…
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.
Jan 13, 2010, 2:54:00 PM
Larry said…
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.

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.

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.
Jan 14, 2010, 10:45:00 AM
Larry said…
Oh, and despite our disagreement on this, I appreciate Retired Customs for his or her always insightful comments.
Jan 14, 2010, 10:47:00 AM
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