Broker Test Taker Asks CIT to Overturn CBP's Denial of Credit for 7 Questions on April 2018 Exam
A customs broker exam taker who is appealing his failing score is asking the Court of International Trade to overturn CBP’s denial of credit for seven questions from the April 2018 test. In a brief filed Oct. 1, Byungmin Chae says CBP erroneously graded his customs broker exam, denying him a broker license on its mistaken finding that he did not score 75 percent or higher.
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.
Chae has already cleared one hurdle at the trade court -- CIT in May declined to dismiss the case as untimely filed, partly because of mail delivery issues, and partly because CBP had told him there could be no further appeal when a CIT challenge was still available to him (see 2105070050).
CBP had given Chae a grade of 65% on the exam, but subsequently granted credit for two more out of three questions that all test takers for that April 2018 test were given credit for. He had already answered one of the three questions correctly. After Chae appealed the results to the Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Trade, CBP granted him credit for an additional three questions, but Chae was left still short of the 75% threshold with a score of 71.25%.
The exam questions Chae is disputing cover a range of customs issues. On one, Chae was denied credit because he said no license is required for foreign-trade zone entry, but Chae says that he was going by the plain meaning of the word “entry,” and no license is required for FTZ admission. Another question deals with mail articles exempt from CBP inspection, but the question doesn’t specify if the packages are domestic or international. The test also included unclear questions on tariff classification, valuation and gray market merchandise, Chae said.
Chae requests that the government pay his attorney’s fees in the case. Attorney’s fees are appropriate when the government’s position during litigation was not “substantially justified,” and that is the case here, Chae says. “The exam answers that the CBP claimed to be incorrect were consistent with Customs Regulations and Practice,” he said. “To the contrary, The CBP’s questions were vague, ambiguous, and unfairly confusing. All of Plaintiff’s answers relied on Customs’ regulations, and the CBPs position in this case is untenable.”