CLA-2 CO:R:CV:V 543912 EK
Area Director of Customs
New York Seaport, New York
RE: Internal Advice No. 47/86
Dear Sir:
This is in reference to an internal advice request
initiated through counsel, on behalf of a certain importer.
There are 13 entries which are unliquidated. In addition,
there are 49 entries which are subject to claims for
reliquidation pursuant to section 520(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930. The importer claims that all the entries are subject to
appraisement pursuant to deductive value, section 402(d) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (TAA; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d)).
This internal advice response will only address the
valuation of the unliquidated entries.
The merchandise consists of baseball caps and baseballs.
It was determined that transaction value pursuant to section
402(b) was not applicable since the price of the merchandise was
effected by the relationship between the parties.
With respect to the baseball caps, an audit to determine
the feasibility of deductive value was conducted. The auditors
determined that adequate documentation was not available to
substantiate the deductive value data submitted. The audit was
suspended, and it was subsequently determined that a transaction
value of identical or similar merchandise pursuant to section
402(c) was available, thereby eliminating the necessity to obtain
further substantiation of the deductive value information.
- 2 -
No specific information pertaining to the claimed section
402(c), transaction value of identical or similar merchandise
appraisement, has been submitted to Headquarters. If in fact a
section 402(c) appraisement is available, then neither Customs
nor the importer have the authority to disregard it and
appraisement under this provision would be appropriate.
If transaction value and transaction value of identical or
similar merchandise cannot be determined, then the customs value
will be based upon deductive value, unless the importer has
elected computed value. With respect to the instant situation,
nothing in the submitted material demonstrates that the importer
has elected the application of computed value before deductive
value.
Counsel for the importer has agreed to provide to the
appraising officer the documentation necessary to appraise the
merchandise pursuant to deductive value. Upon receipt of the
necessary information, and assuming it meets the statutory
requirements of deductive value pursuant to section 402(d), then
appraisement pursuant to that section is proper.
Regarding the appraisement of the baseballs, although no
claim has been made that a transaction value of identical or
similar merchandise pursuant to section 402(c) exists, it is
Customs position that the documentation with respect to deductive
value has not been substantiated. Again, as indicated above,
counsel has agreed to supply the necessary information.
Subsequent to receipt of the documentation, and assuming it meets
the statutory requirements of deductive value pursuant to section
402(d), then appraisement of the baseballs pursuant to deductive
value is proper as well.
Sincerely,
John Durant
Acting Director, Commercial
Rulings Division