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 > 1995 HQ Rulings > HQ 955379 - HQ 955525 > HQ 955396

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 955396




June 20, 1994

LIQ-9-01 CO:R:C:E 955396 SLR

CATEGORY: LIQUIDATION

Regional Commissioner of U.S. Customs
New York Region
6 World Trade Center, Room 716
New York, NY 10048

Attn: Head, Protest and Control Section

RE: Application for Further Review of Protest 1001-93-106519; Civil Aircraft Agreement; Blanket Certificate; Importer; Ultimate Consignee; 19 CFR 10,183(c)(2); 19 CFR 101.1(1)

Dear Sir:

The above-referenced protest was forwarded to our office for further review. We have considered the points raised and our decision follows.

FACTS:

On December 21, 1992, certain aircraft parts were entered for repair under subheading 8803.30.0010, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) by customhouse broker Expeditors International. The importer of record for the entry was Singapore Airlines (protestant). The ultimate consignee was Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut. Free entry was claimed for the merchandise pursuant to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (CAA). Customs denied free entry because the importer, Singapore Airlines, did not have a blanket certificate on file with the district of entry and no entry-by-entry certificate was attached to the entry summary. The merchandise was liquidated at 3.7 percent ad valorem on July 7, 1993, and this protest was timely filed on September 20, 1993.

Protestant maintains that the ultimate consignee, Pratt & Whitney, had on file with the district of entry a "civil aircraft statement" and that this should satisfy import requirements for the civil aircraft provisions.

ISSUE:

Whether an ultimate consignee assigned to repair aircraft is interchangeable with an importer concerning the criteria set forth in 19 CFR 10.183(c)(2).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Title VI, Civil Aircraft Agreement, of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Sec. 601, P.L. 96-39, 93 Star. 144, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1979), implemented the Agreement on Trade and Civil Aircraft. This Agreement became effective in the United States on January 1, 1980. On June 7, 1984, 19 CFR Part 10, was amended to include section 10.183. This section provides for the duty-free admission of civil aircraft parts for civil aircraft certified for use in accordance with the provisions of General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUSA.

General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUSA, indicates that when merchandise is entered under a tariff provision for which the free rate ("C") for civil aircraft appears:

[T]he importer shall file a written statement, accompanied by such supporting documentation as the Secretary of the Treasury may require, with the appropriate customs officer stating that the imported article has been imported for use in civil aircraft, that it will so be used and that the article has been approved for such use by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) or by an airworthiness authority in the country of exportation, if such approval is recognized by the FAA as an acceptable substitute for FAA certification, or that an application for approval for such use has been submitted to, and accepted by, the Administrator of the FAA. (Emphasis added.)

Section 10,183(c)(2) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.183(c)(2)), provides that the importer must submit at the time of filing the entry summary a certification for each entry or a blanket certification if more than one entry of civil aircraft parts will be made within a 12-month period. The blanket certification will be valid for a period of one year from the date of approval by the district director where the civil aircraft parts will be entered. Failure to provide an entry-by-entry certificate at the time of filing the entry summary or to have an approved blanket certification on file with the district director in the district where the entry summary is filed shall result in a dutiable entry.

Protestant maintains that the ultimate consignee, Pratt & Whitney, had on file a "civil aircraft statement" with the district of entry and that this should satisfy the CAA import requirements.

An "importer" is the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise, or an authorized agent acting on its behalf. 19 CFR 101.1(1). Here, Singapore Airlines appears as the importer of record on the entry summary for the civil aircraft parts and is the party from whom the Customs bond was posted. As such, it is the person primarily liable for the payment of duties on the merchandise. A consignee can qualify as an "importer" under 19 CFR 101.1(1). However, in this case, Pratt & Whitney is the ultimate consignee, not the consignee, and thus cannot qualify as an importer under the regulations.

Section 24.11 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 24.11) states that any increased or additional duties or taxes found due upon liquidation shall be billed to the importer of record or to the actual owner of the merchandise. Here, Singapore Airlines is both the importer of record and the actual owner of the merchandise. As indicated, the bond for the subject civil aircraft parts is in the name of Singapore Airlines. Apart from any compensation owed Singapore Airlines for damage incurred during repairs, the ultimate consignee Pratt & Whitney has no legal responsibility for this merchandise.

Protestant indicates that another repair facility and ultimate consignee, Hamilton Standard, had on file a blanket certificate for civil aircraft parts with the district of entry. The subject entry documents and repair order, however, list only Pratt & Whitney as the party to whom the merchandise was to be delivered for repairs. Moreover, as indicated, an ultimate consignee will not qualify as an importer under 19 CFR 101.1(1).

Protestant maintains that since Pratt & Whitney and Hamilton Standard are repair facilities, their "civil aircraft statements" should satisfy the airworthiness requirements of the FAA. General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUSA, however, pertains to airworthiness determinations made by either the FAA or an equivalent agency of the exporting country deemed satisfactory by the FAA, not a repair facility.

Protestant comments that Singapore Airlines had on file a blanket certificate for civil aircraft parts with the Customs district in San Francisco. However, the Customs regulations are clear that a blanket certificate must be on file in the district where the entry is made by the time of entry summary. Singapore Airlines did not have a blanket certificate on file with New York Customs at the time of entry summary. Therefore, Customs was correct in liquidating the merchandise as fully dutiable.

HOLDING:

The ultimate consignee is not interchangeable with the importer concerning the criteria set forth in 19 CFR 10.183(c)(2). This protest should be denied.

In accordance with Section 3A(ll)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office, with the Form 19, 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 the mailing of this 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.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: