The Pesky Problem of Preference Criteria

Those who are responsible for NAFTA compliance are very familiar with the NAFTA Certificate of Origin and the Preference Criteria to be recorded in Field 7.  The criteria are used to indicate to the importer as well as to the customs authorities in the country of importation exactly how the goods qualify as originating. Under the NAFTA, there are six possible preference criteria with preference criterion B being the most common. When Customs sees a B in Field 7, it knows that the finished good contains non-originating material and that the good qualifies as originating because the non-originating materials made a qualifying change in tariff classification as a result of production in North America and, if applicable, the finished good satisfies the Regional Value Content requirement.

That is all simple enough under NAFTA. But, under the subsequent free trade agreements, no one ever specified a coding system for the preference criteria. As far as I am concerned, the lack of a uniform coding methodology is a travesty. Nevertheless, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's instructions on the implementation of the various agreements require that the certifying party specify how the good came to be originating.

Apparently, Customs has found this to be a bit of a problem as well. I gather that based on the fact that Customs just issued a reminder to the trade that FTA claims need to specify the basis for the origin determination. In that message, Customs also provided examples. Here is the text of the message free of copyright and in glorious courier font:


For importations into the United States under a free trade agreement (FTA), when a producer, exporter or importer issues an FTA certification of origin (a.k.a. Implementation Instructions, Attachment A), the “Preference Criterion” field should indicate how the good originates (meets the terms of the agreement) with the greatest specificity possible.

EXAMPLE

For example, with respect to an importation of lead sheet under the Peru TPA classified in HTSUS 7804.11.00, the “Preference Criterion” field of the certification of origin* should indicate how the good originates, as follows:

•           If the good is wholly obtained:

HTSUS General Note 32(b)(i) or alternatively, Peru TPA Article 4.1(1)(a)

•           If the good is produced entirely in Peru and all non-originating materials undergo the required tariff shift (and/or regional value content) specified in the corresponding specific rule of origin:

HTSUS General Note 32(n)78.2**  or alternatively, Peru TPA Annex 4.1, Chapter 78, Item 2

•           If the good is produced entirely in a Peru exclusively from originating materials:

HTSUS General Note 32(b)(iii) or Peru TPA Article 4.1(1)(c)

This methodology should be used for all “tariff-shift” FTAs*** unless the Agreement, Regulations, or other officially published material provides for an alternate method. (e.g. The NAFTA provides for criterion “A,” “B and “C”.)

If no rule of origin is met, FTA preference cannot be claimed.

*   The Peru TPA certification of origin is available at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/- trade_programs/international_agreements/free_trade/peru/a.ctt/a.pdf and the certifications of origin for our other FTAs are available on www.cbp.gov by searching the country name and selecting the corresponding SmartLink.

**  The General Note citation is preferable for ease of use and because it is periodically modified to incorporate World Customs Organization updates to the Harmonized System nomenclature.

***  The FTAs that employ a tariff-shift methodology to confer origination are: NAFTA, Chile FTA, Singapore FTA, Australia FTA, CAFTA-DR, Peru TPA, Colombia TPA, and Panama TPA.

Questions may be directed to fta@dhs.gov.

Comments

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