CBP Has Not Proposed any Ruling Changes in the Customs Bulletin for over 7 Mos
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has not published any 1625(c) proposed ruling modifications or revocations in the Customs Bulletin since July 5, 2010. Such rulings require advance notice and comment, as they may modify treatment previously accorded by CBP to substantially identical transactions.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Controversies over 2009 1625(c) Rulings Led to Internal Review
Due to controversies over several proposed and final 19 USC 1625(c) rulings CBP issued during summer 2009 (see below), CBP implemented an internal review of its 1625(c) ruling process that fall. The review is believed to have led to additional scrutiny by CBP over pending and future 1625(c) actions. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 01/11/09 news, 09111305, for BP summary.)
Also May Have Had “Chilling Effect” on CBP’s Interest in These Types of Rulings
According to trade sources, these controversies may have also made CBP less interested in the 1625(c) ruling process in general (even though the vast majority of its 1625(c) rulings had not been controversial, and had only been to correct specific classification decisions).
One of the 2009 controversial proposed 1625(c) actions was implemented, but is not yet being enforced, while two others were withdrawn, as follows:
IIT with residue. In July 2009, CBP published a 1625(c) ruling (HQ H026715) to require chemical residue imported in containers to be classified, entered, and manifested, while the containers themselves continue to be considered instruments of international traffic (IIT).
However, CBP delayed enforcement of these requirements for chemical and other bulk product residues, until further notice. As of December 2010, CBP was working with trucking associations and rail carriers on a few unresolved issues. CBP is encouraging the trade to take steps to comply with this requirement at their earliest opportunity, and gave instructions on how to do so in a May 2010 (updated in November) FAQ document. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 12/10/10 and 12/14/10 news, 10121022 and 10121426, for BP summaries of updated FAQ.)
Coastwise transport. In July 2009, CBP had proposed to issue five 1625(c) rulings in order to strictly interpret T.D. 78-387 on the transport of merchandise, so that foreign vessels could not transport merchandise from one U.S. point to install at another point on the outer continental shelf (OCS). CBP sources had stated that the proposals would have affected any transportation between any coastwise points.
CBP withdrew these proposed “Jones Act” rulings in October 2009. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 10/j06/09 news, 09100650, for BP summary.)
Vessel equipment. In July 2009, CBP has proposed 15 1625(c) rulings to modify its position on what constitutes “vessel equipment.” CBP had proposed to limit its definition to articles necessary for the vessel itself, and the safety and comfort of the persons on board (and to remove its applicability to articles that a vessel would use to engage in a particular activity).
CBP withdrew these proposed vessel equipment rulings in October 2009. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 10/06/09 news, 09100650, for BP summary.)
CBP also Had to Withdraw 2009 Proposed 1625(c) Rulings that Were Inaccurate
In addition, CBP had to withdraw June and August 2009 proposed 1625(c) rulings on (1) DR-CAFTA hosiery made with non-originating elastomeric yarns and (2) Singapore free trade agreement (FTA) women’s pullovers with a non-originating patch pocket, due to CBP errors.
(CBP also had to correct its August 2009 proposed 1625(c) rulings on auto-samplers for chromotographs and DNA sequencing genetic analyzer machines.)