United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0544471 - HQ 0555183 > HQ 0544562

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 544562

October 1, 1990

VAL CO:R:C:V 544562 DPS


Mr. Richard Schneider
Universal Transcontinental Corp.
55 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10013

RE: Request for ruling on dutiability of foreign inland freight charges on liquidated entries

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1990, requesting a ruling on the dutiable status of foreign inland freight charges pertaining to entries that, our records indicate, have been liquidated. With your ruling request, you attached a copy of a letter from the District Director, Columbia- Snake District, referencing entry number 062-2023565-6. Your request does not relate to a prospective transaction, but pertains to a transaction which is pending or one which Customs has already taken final action on.

Section 177.1(a)(2)(ii) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.1(a)(2)(ii)), provides:

A question arising in connection with an entry of merchandise which has been liquidated, or in connection with any other completed Customs transaction, may not be the subject of a ruling request.

In accordance with the regulation set forth above, please be advised that a ruling will not be issued in response to your request because the request pertains to a pending or completed Customs transaction.

For your information, in a situation involving an ex-factory sale, if the price actually paid or payable by the buyer to the seller for the imported merchandise does not include a charge for foreign inland freight and other charges for services incident to the international shipment of merchandise (an ex-factory price), those charges will not be added to the price. In those situations where the price actually paid or payable for imported
merchandise includes a charge for foreign inland freight, whether or not itemized separately on the invoices or other commercial documents, that charge will be part of the transaction value to the extent included in the price. However, charges for foreign inland freight and other services incident to the shipment of the merchandise to the United States may be considered incident to the international shipment of that merchandise within the meaning of section 152.102(f) of the Customs Regulations if they are identified separately and they occur after the merchandise has been sold for export to the United States and placed with a carrier for through shipment to the United States. A sale for export and placement for through shipment to the United States is established by means of a through bill of lading presented to the district director. See section 152.103(a)(5), Customs Regulations. All of the requirements described above must be strictly complied with if Customs is to deduct foreign inland freight charges from a transaction value price which includes such charges.

With regard to your inquiry, the proper method of obtaining review of the Customs action about which you complain is to file a protest. Part 174 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 174, specifically, 19 CFR 174.12 through 19 CFR 174.16) which sets forth in detail the rules and procedures governing the filing of protests. The time in which you may file a protest is governed by 19 CFR 174.12(e) which states:

(e) Time of filing. Protests shall be filed, in accordance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514), within 90 days after either:

(1) The date of notice of liquidation or reliquidation in accordance with sections 159.9 or 159.10 of this chapter;

(2) The date of the decision, involving neither a liquidation nor reliquidation, as to which the protest is made (e.g., the date of an exaction, the date of written notice excluding merchandise from entry or delivery under any provision of the Customs laws or the date of a refusal to reliquidate under 520(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended); or

(3) The date of mailing of notice of demand for payment against a bond in the case of a surety which has an unsatisfied legal claim under a bond written by the surety.

Upon inquiry with Columbia-Snake District Customs, we have learned that the entry referenced in the attachments to your July 20, 1990 letter was liquidated on October 28, 1989. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1514, which provides that all decisions by an appropriate Customs officer shall be final and conclusive upon all persons unless a protest is filed within the prescribed time period, we are precluded from pursuing this matter further with regard to the liquidated entries.


Marvin M. Amernick,
Chief, Value, Special Programs

Previous Ruling Next Ruling