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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0557668 - HQ 0731996 > HQ 0557707

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 557707

May 4, 1994

CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 557707 MLR


TARIFF NO.: 9801.00.60

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
5758 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90045

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-93- 103306; Denial of duty exemption under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS, to a lathe; documentation; CF 4455; Certificate of Registration; exhibition

Dear Sir:

This is in reference to your memorandum dated October 27, 1993, forwarding a protest and application for further review timely filed by Kingston Machine Tool Mfg. Inc., which contests the denial of the duty exemption under subheading 9801.00.60, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), to a heavy duty precision lathe ("lathe").


A lathe, previously imported into the U.S. from Taiwan, was exported to Mexico, along with another lathe and milling machine, on February 25, 1993, to be shown at the Metal Expomex '93 Exhibition, held March 9-12, 1993. After the exhibition, one lathe was reimported into the U.S. and entered at Los Angeles on April 9, 1993, under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS. The entry was liquidated on July 30, 1993.

The claim for duty-free entry under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS, was denied because neither a Certificate of Exportation (CF 3311) nor a Certificate of Registration (CF 4455) was submitted with the entry, which your office alleges are required by 19 CFR 10.66(a), and pursuant to Export Packers Co., Ltd. v. United States, 795 F. Supp. 422 (CIT 1992).

The protestant states that the following documents were submitted at the time the lathe was entered into the U.S.:

(1) Hong Kong Iron Works, Ltd. invoice for the original importation of the lathe into the U.S.;
(2) the Los Angeles entry dated January 11, 1992, of the lathe and payment of duty and the merchandise processing fee; (3) Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) signed by the export agent on February 16, 1993, with a notation that these goods are to be displayed at the Metal Expomex '93 Exhibition, and will be returned to Laredo after the fair; (4) commercial invoice #015374 accompanying the SED, showing the delivery "c/o Metal Expomex '93";
(5) Mexican Customs entry dated February 25, 1993, referencing shipper's invoice #015374, and containing the notation "exposicion en Monterrey, N.L., del 9 al 13 Marzo 93..."; (6) Laredo Texas in bond entry dated April 1, 1993, showing entry of the lathe at Laredo, Texas, for shipment to Los Angeles;
(7) Melton Trucking Straight Bill of Lading, dated April 1, 1993, showing shipment of a lathe to Huntington Beach, California;
(8) Los Angeles entry/immediate delivery form, dated April 8, 1993, and showing release of a lathe from Customs on April 9, 1993; and
(9) Los Angeles Entry summary, dated April 9, 1993.

Your office states that exhibits 3, 5, and 7 were not presented at the time of entry. The protestant claims that the totality of these documents clearly establish that the lathe is entitled to duty-free entry under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS.


Whether the lathe is eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS.


Subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS, provides for the free entry of articles which are returned after having been exported for temporary use abroad solely for exhibition or use in connection with any public exposition, fair, or conference, provided such articles are returned by or for the account of the person who exported them.

In connection with the entry of articles exported for temporary exhibition, and returned and claimed to be exempt from duty under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS, a certificate of exportation on Customs Form 3311, and a declaration of the importer on Customs Form 4455 for articles of either domestic or foreign origin are required. 19 CFR 10.66(a)(1) and (2). However, if it is shown to be impracticable to produce the certificate of exportation, the district director may accept other satisfactory evidence of exportation, or may take a bond on Customs Form 301 to secure the production of such certificate or other evidence. 19 CFR 10.66(b). Articles claimed to be exempt from duty under subheading 9801.00.50 or 9801.00.60, HTSUS, may be returned free of duty without formal entry and without regard to the requirements of 19 CFR 10.66(a) or (b), if prior to the exportation of such articles, an application on CF 4455 is filed with a declaration thereon that "...the merchandise was identified, registered and exported in accordance with the regulations set forth in 10.8(d), (f), (g), and (h), governing the exportation of articles sent abroad for repairs; and upon return, a duplicate CF 4455 ... is filed." 10 CFR

Your office cites Export Packers as support for the position that the filing of the CF 4455 is an absolute requirement in order for the protestant to obtain the duty exemption under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS. In Export Packers, it was held that the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements in item 806.20, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) (the predecessor provision of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS), mainly the filing of a CF 4455 at the time the merchandise was exported from the U.S. for alterations, was sufficient reason for Customs to deny a claim for duty-free entry under item 806.20, TSUS. Your office states that the treatment of the CF 4455 in the Customs Regulations is the same for both 9801.00.60 and 9802.00.50.

The court stated that General Headnote 11 and Headnote 1 to Schedule 8, TSUS, made the fulfillment of the rules and regulations promulgated by Customs, mandatory conditions precedent to TSUS classification under item 806.20. Specifically, General Headnote 11 (now General Note 17) provided that:

The allowance of an importer's claim for classification, under any of the provisions of the schedules which provide for total or partial relief from duty or other import restrictions on the basis of facts which are not determinable from an examination of the article itself in its condition as imported, is dependant upon [the compliance] with any rules or regulations which may be issued pursuant to the headnote.

Further, Headnote 1 to Schedule 8, TSUS, (now U.S. Note 1, Chapter 98) provided that: "any article which is described in any provision in this schedule is classifiable in said provision if the conditions and requirements thereof and of any applicable regulations are met." Id. Consequently, by virtue of 19 CFR 10.8 which provides the documentary requirements for articles exported for repairs or alterations, the top portion of a CF 4455 had to be filed with the district director at the port where the articles were exported from the U.S., at the time of exportation, in order for Customs to inspect the articles in their condition as exported, and the importer was required to file those Customs- endorsed CF 4455's at the time the articles were returned to the U.S. Id. Furthermore, the court noted that based on F.W. Myers & Co., Inc. v. United States, 72 Cust. Ct. 133, 137, C.D. 4515 (1974), the late filing privileges of 19 CFR 10.112 do not apply to the top portion of the CF 4455, which must be filed with Customs and endorsed at the time of exportation from the U.S., whereas 19 CFR 10.112 relates solely to documents that must be filed "in connection with the entry."

The protestant claims that where formal entry is made, 19 CFR 10.66 does not require the filing of the CF 4455 at the time the merchandise is exported, only at the time entry is made. The evidence of exportation, where formal entry is made, is contained within the CF 3311, or its waiver, as provided for in 19 CFR 10.66(a)(1) and (b). Consequently, the protestant claims that although a CF 3311 and CF 4455 were not filed, the documents listed above, especially the SED which contains all of the essential information called for on CF 3311 and CF 4455 including a listing of the specific items being exported, clearly establish that the lathe was exported from the U.S. for display in Mexico, and that the same lathe was returned to the U.S. shortly after the exhibition. The protestant states that the SED provided "other satisfactory evidence of exportation," which should have been accepted in lieu of the CF 3311. The SED together with other documents such as the Mexican entry also provided Customs with essentially all the information called for by the CF 4455.

On the other hand, if formal entry is not made, the protestant claims that the CF 4455 is required at the time of exportation of the merchandise pursuant to 19 CFR 10.66(c). In any event, the protestant claims that Customs should have granted more time to obtain the CF 4455, and although the lathe was not registered for temporary exhibition at a public trade show, the intent of 19 CFR 10.66(b), is to provide relief to an importer who causes foreign-made exhibition material to be exported without benefit of registration. The protestant claims that just because a CF 4455 was not filed with the entry documents at the time of re-entry does not preclude the filing subsequent to entry.

Section 10.66(a), Customs Regulations {19 CFR 10.66(a)} clearly requires CF 3311 and CF 4455 to be filed at the time of entry. The Certificate of Exportation (CF 3311) is technically required at the time of exportation so that the district director may execute the bottom portion. Pursuant to 19 CFR 10.66(b), the presentation of CF 3311 may be waived if "other satisfactory evidence" proving the exportation is presented. It is our opinion that the SED along with the Mexican entry is "other satisfactory evidence" in place of CF 3311, which proves the lathe was exported from the U.S. Your office claims that the SED and Mexican entry were not presented at the time of entry. However, the reference in 19 CFR 10.66(b) to the bond conditions set forth in 19 CFR 113.62 indicates that CF 3311 "or other evidence" may be produced after entry.

Section 10.66(a)(2), Customs Regulations {19 CFR 10.66(a)(2)} states that a "declaration of the importer on Customs Form 4455..." must be filed in connection with the entry. In addition, T.D. 75-235 abolished Customs Form 3329, which was an importer's declaration for free entry for articles exported temporarily for exhibition, and consolidated this information into CF 4455. Unlike CF 3311, there is no waiver of CF 4455 in 19 CFR 10.66. Consequently, CF 4455 must be presented at the time of entry, which it was not. However, 19 CFR 112 provides, in part, that a free entry document required in connection with the entry or within the period for which a bond was filed for its production may be filed before liquidation becomes final, if the lack of presentation at the time of entry was not willful or negligent. This section is applicable because 19 CFR 10.66(a) requires CF 4455 at the time of entry. In a letter dated April 27, 1994, the protestant submitted CF 4455 for the subject entry, a copy of which is enclosed. Consequently, it is our opinion that the documentary requirements of subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS, have been satisfied.


Based on the information submitted, we find that the lathe is eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.60, HTSUS. Although the CF 4455 was not filed at the time of entry, it has been filed prior to finality of liquidation and thus may be accepted pursuant to 19 CFR 10.66(a) and 19 CFR 112. Accordingly, the protest should be granted.

In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065 dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, this decision should be attached to Customs Form 19, Notice of Action, and be mailed by your office to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis, Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: