RR:IT:VA 546262 KCC
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
JFK Airport, Building #77
Jamaica, New York 11430
RE: Internal Advice 18/94; transaction value; buying commission;
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. v. United States; Rosenthal-Netter,
Inc. v. United States; Jay-Arr Slimwear, Inc. v. United
States; New Trends, Inc. v. United States; J.C. Penney
Purchasing Corp. v. United States; Dorco Imports v. United
States; related party; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(g)(1); interest;
T.D. 85-111 and Clarification; Generra Sportswear Co. v.
United States; Moss Mfg. Co. v. United States; claimed rate
of interest does not exceed the level for such transactions
prevailing in the country where, and when the financing was
provided; HRLs 543765, 544610, 542141, and 544965; letter of
credit confirmation charge
Dear Port Director:
This is in regards to your memorandum under cover of which
you forwarded a request for internal advice (IA 18/94) submitted
by Gibney, Anthoney & Flaherty (including Follick & Bessich,
P.C.) on behalf of Amar Textiles (USA) Inc. ("Amar"). The
request was received in this office on February 8, 1996. The
issues raised are whether commissions and finance charges paid to
the alleged agent, Viva Texturium, are included in the price
actually paid or payable in determining transaction value for the
imported fabric. Audit Report No. 220-93-CEO-002 dated June 30,
1994, a memorandum from Chief, Textile and Plastics Branch,
National Commodity Specialist Division, New York Seaport, dated
February 2, 1996, and information submitted at a meeting on July
11, 1996, and in an additional submission dated September 13,
1996, and September 3, 1997, were taken into consideration in
reaching this decision. We regret the delay in responding to
your request.
FACTS:
J.M. Viva International and then its successor, Amar
Textiles (USA) Inc. ("Amar") import textile fabric from various
unrelated suppliers and related mills ("foreign suppliers") in
Japan, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand and Taiwan.
J.M. Viva International imported textile fabric through February
1992 until Amar purchased its assets, merchandise stock,
clientele and location. Shortly thereafter, Amar commenced
importing on its own behalf. Amar is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Amarnani Textiles Ind. (PVT) Ltd., of Bombay, India
("Amarnani"). Amar states that it does not purchase any fabric
from Amarnani and none of its transactions involve Amarnani. You
note that the owners of Amar, Amarnani, Viva Textorium of Dubai,
United Arab Emirates ("Viva", the purported buying agent), Harry
(Japan) Ltd. (supplier), and Harry (UK) Ltd. (supplier), are all
brothers. Additionally, the owner of J.M. Viva International is
a sister. All the importations of the textile fabric use the
trademark "Harry Collection" which is owned by Amarnani.
Moreover, you state that the textile fabric sold by Fuji in Japan
was manufactured by Harry (Japan) Ltd. and payment was made with
Harry (Japan) Ltd. listed as the beneficiary. Viva has been
authorized to use this trademark in its sales in the home market
of Dubai, United Arab Emirates ("U.A.E.") without payment.
In an Agreement dated January 3, 1992, Viva agreed to
perform various services on behalf of Amar. 1 of the Agreement
states that Viva agrees to act as "Purchasing Agent" for Amar and
perform the following services:
2. liaison with suppliers and manufactures of textile
goods located in various countries;
3. "...establish Letters of Credit on behalf of the
Importer [Amar] in favour of the suppliers located in
various countries, selected by the Purchasing Agent
[Viva] and will not represent suppliers selected by the
Purchaser [Amar];
4. ensure that the suppliers ship the textile fabric
pursuant to the terms and conditions of Amar's order
and ensure the textile fabric is received according to
Amar's requirements, including conforming to United
States regulations;
5. process through bankers documents under the established
Letters of Credit;
6. verify these documents before transmittal to Amar;
7. obtain and send to Amar samples of textile fabric
ordered by Amar;
8. ensure suppliers ship textile fabric through Amar's
specified shipping lines or airlines;
9. liable for non-shipment or late shipment of textile
fabric to Amar;
10. represent Amar in negotiations and settlement with
suppliers concerning the defective, damaged or shortage
of ordered textile fabrics; and
11. ensure that suppliers's payments are timely submitted
and is liable for late payment; Amar is not liable for
late payment to the suppliers.
In exchange for Viva's services, the Agreement establishes
that Amar agrees to pay Viva the following amounts:
1. cost of goods paid to the supplier;
2. Letter of Credit confirmation charge of 2% of the cost
of goods;
3. If applicable, Marine Insurance of 0.2% of the cost of
goods;
4. Letter of Credit interest of 12.5% payable for 30 days
on the cost of goods;
5. Buyer commission of 3% on the cost of the goods;
6. Trust Receipt Interest of 12.5% payable for 120 days on
the total of the above amounts. i.e. 1-5;
7. Documentation Charges of 0.065% on the cost of goods;
8. Courier/Other charges of $25.00 per document; and
9. Overdue interest of 12.5% payable in case of non-payment on the due date for payment as mentioned in the
Debit Note from Viva.
It is your position that transaction value pursuant to
402(b) of the TAA is based on the invoices from Viva less
deductions for international freight, marine insurance (#3
above), documentation charges (#7 above) and courier charges (#8
above). Although the written Agreement exists, it is your
position that Viva performs none of the services traditionally
handled by a buying agent. Thus, a bona fide buying agency does
not exist and the 3% buying commission (#5 above) is part of the
price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise.
Additionally, it is your position that the following amounts are
also included in the price actually paid or payable:
total amount for the letter of credit confirmation charge
(#2 above) because this amount is excessive. Normally,
letter of credit confirmation charges range from $25.00 to
$75.00.
total amount for the letter of credit interest of 12.5% for
the 30 days (#4 above) because interest does not normally
accrue within the first 30 days from purchase.
any amount over the actual interest rate prevailing in the
U.A.E. for the trust receipt interest (#6 above) and for the
overdue interest (#9 above).
Amar contends that Viva secures foreign suppliers of fabric,
acts as its representative in purchasing the fabric which it
agreed to purchase, transmits samples of any fabric ordered by
it, and opens letters of credit on its behalf and in favor of the
foreign suppliers. Amar states that pursuant to the Agreement,
it alone has the right to designate the foreign supplier found by
Viva and that Viva is prohibited from representing any foreign
supplier which is selected by Amar. Thus, Amar maintains that
the Agreement serves as a comprehensive buying agreement, which
includes separate provisions for financing the purchase of the
fabric by Amar and the payment of interest to Viva for such
financing. Additionally, Amar notes that the foreign suppliers
of the fabric are paid for the goods through the letters of
credit opened by Viva on Amar's behalf and that the foreign
suppliers do not permit nor collect interest on delayed payments
for the ordered textiles.
Amar states that it files an entry and deposits duties in
accordance with the purchase price shown on the commercial
invoice issued by the foreign supplier of the textile fabric.
Generally, the commercial invoice shows Amar as either the
purchaser or consignee. However, Amar states that where required
by the letter of credit or as designated by the foreign supplier
Viva may be shown as either the purchaser or consignee. In all
cases, Amar is shown as the party to be notified and receive
shipment of the textile fabric. Additionally, at or about
importation, Viva issues to Amar a debit note and separate
invoice. The invoice sets forth the cost of the goods plus the
various charges that Amar will incur for insurance, commission,
documentation, and couriers, as well as the interest charges it
will incur in order to finance the purchase price. The debit
note sets forth the total amount due and the due date, which is
150 days from the date of the debit note. Amar makes payments
for its purchases on a running basis, rather than on a shipment
by shipment basis. For example, a compilation prepared by Amar's
accountant listing purchases from March 1992 to November 1993,
and payments made during this period shows that Amar made
purchases valued at nearly six million dollars and made payments
of over three million dollars.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the commission paid to Viva Textorium constitutes a
bona fide buying commission such that it is not included in
the transaction value of the imported merchandise.
2. Whether the financing charges paid by Amar to Viva Textorium
are included in the transaction value of the imported
merchandise.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The preferred method of appraising merchandise imported into
the United States is transaction value pursuant to 402(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of
1979 ("TAA"), codified at 19 U.S.C. 1401a. 402(b)(1) of the
TAA provides, in pertinent part, that the transaction value of
imported merchandise is the "price actually paid or payable for
the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States"
plus numerated additions. The term "price actually paid or
payable" is defined in 402(b)(4)(A) of the TAA as:
...the total payment (whether direct or indirect, and
exclusive of any costs, charges, or expenses incurred
for transportation, insurance, and related services
incident to the international shipment of the
merchandise...) made, or to be made, for the imported
merchandise by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the
seller.
As a general matter, Customs presumes that the price paid by
the importer is the basis of transaction value. We note that you
have not questioned the roles of Amar as the buyer and the
foreign suppliers as sellers. However, before determining
whether the commissions paid to Viva constitute bona fide buying
commissions, we find it best to clarify the roles of the buyer
and seller involved in the sale for exportation to the U.S. of
the imported merchandise.
The financial relationship between the parties confuses much
of the evidence which would establish a buyer and seller
transaction or the principal-agent relationship. Because of the
financing requirements, the invoice terms are often obscured.
Many of the invoices list Viva as the buyer and Amar as the
consignee while others list Amar as the buyer. These
designations are often requirements necessary when establishing
letters of credit.
Nevertheless, based on the evidence submitted, Amar appears
to be recognized as the buyer of the goods by the foreign
suppliers. The foreign supplier's commercial invoices show Amar
as either the purchaser or consignee. However, the
correspondence from the foreign suppliers regarding payment of
the imported merchandise is addressed directly to Amar.
Additionally, Purchase Order Confirmations were submitted showing
orders made by Amar directly to the foreign suppliers,
referencing Viva as the party authorized to establish the letter
of credit. Generally, the terms of sale on the commercial
invoices from the foreign suppliers to Amar are C&F (Cost and
Freight) New York or CIF (Cost Insurance Freight) New York and
this cost is included in the foreign supplier's invoice price.
Thus, the foreign suppliers are responsible for procurring
transporation to New York. In these situations, Risk of Loss
passes to Amar when loaded onto the ship at the port of
exportation. Shipment of merchandise is made directly to Amar
from the foreign suppliers. Although Viva does act as an
independent seller in the U.A.E., it does not appear that Viva
acts as an intermediate seller in these transactions. Viva never
takes possession of the goods, but merely arranges for insurance
and provides financing of the imported goods for Amar. Amar pays
for these services via the Agreement when billed by Viva on an
individual invoice basis. Thus, the buyer in these transactions
is Amar and the foreign suppliers are the sellers. We must next
determine whether Viva acts as a bona fide buying agent for Amar.
1. Buying Commission
Buying commissions are fees paid by an importer to his agent
for the service of representing him aborad in the purchase of the
goods being appraised. Bona fide buying commissions are not
added to the price actually paid or payable. Pier 1 Imports,
Inc. v. United States, 708 F. Supp. 351, 13 CIT 161, 164 (1989);
Rosenthal-Netter, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. Supp. 21, 23, 12
CIT 77, 78, aff'd, 861 F.2d 261 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Jay-Arr
Slimwear, Inc. v. United States, 681 F. Supp. 875,878, 12 CIT
133, 136 (1988). The importer has the burden of proving that a
bona fide agency relationship exists and that payments to the
agent constitute bona fide buying commissions. Rosenthal-Netter,
Inc, supra., New Trends, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 637, 645
F. Supp. 957 (1986); Pier 1 Imports, Inc, supra.
The existence of a bona fide buying commission depends upon
the relevant factors of the individual case. J.C. Penney
Purchasing Corp. v. United States, 80 Cust. Ct. 84, 95, C.D.
4741, 451 F. Supp. 973 (1978). Although no single factor is
determinative, the primary consideration is the right of the
principal to control the agent's conduct with respect to those
matters entrusted to the agent. Jay-Arr Slimwear, Pier 1
Imports, Inc., J.C. Penney, and Rosenthal-Netter, supra. In
addition, the courts have examined such factors as whether the
purported agent's actions were primarily for the benefit of the
principal; whether the agent was responsible for the shipping and
handling and the costs thereof; whether the language used in the
commercial invoices was consistent with a principal-agent
relationship; whether the agent bore the risk of loss for
damaged, lost or defective merchandise; and whether the agent was
financially detached from the manufacturer of the merchandise.
The degree of discretion granted the agent is a further
consideration. New Trends, 645 F. Supp. 957. The existence of a
bona fide buying commission
is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances. See,
Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 542141 dated September 29, 1990
(TAA No.7).
When examining whether a purported agent is a bona fide
buying agent, closer scrutiny is warranted where special
circumstances exist. Although the purported agent, Viva
Textorium, and the buyer, Amar Textiles (USA) Inc., are not
related pursuant to 402(g)(1) of the TAA and 19 U.S.C.
1401a(g)(1), the owners of these two companies are brothers.
Additionally, Viva is financing Amar's purchases. Although these
circumstances do not prima facie negate a buying agency
relationship, they warrant closer scrutiny of the alleged
principal-buyer relationship.
The existence of a buying agency agreement has been viewed
as supporting the existence of a buying agency relationship.
Dorco Imports v. United States, 67 Cust. Ct. 503, 512, R.D. 11753
(1971). Although a buying agency agreement was presented in this
case, it is Customs position that "having legal authority to act
as a buying agent and acting as a buying agent are two separate
matters and Customs is entitled to examine the evidence which
proves the latter. U.S. Customs Service General Notice, 11 Cust
Bull. 15 (March 15, 1989) See, HRL 544965 dated February 22,
1994.
It is our position that insufficient evidence was presented
to show that Viva actually performed as a buying agent pursuant
to the Agreement or that it performed the typical services of a
buying agent, such as compiling market information, and gathering
samples, placing orders pursuant to Amar's direction, assisting
in price negotiations, inspecting and packing merchandise and
arranging for shipment. Amar states that it instructs Viva with
respect to the fabrics needed and their specifications, the
fabric it will accept and order, the foreign supplier it will buy
from, the quantities it requires, the prices it agrees to pay,
and the shipping dates it requires. Other than the above
statements by Amar, no evidence such as correspondence between
Amar and Viva, purchase orders, or contracts, was submitted to
substantiate Amar's claims and Viva's action with regard to the
responsibility as set forth in the Agreement. On the contrary,
the Purchase Order Confirmations submitted establish that Amar
dealt directly with the foreign supplier; no reference to Viva or
a buying agent is made in these documents other than Viva's
responsibilities in establishing the letter of credit.
Additionally, as counsel noted in the September 3, 1997,
submission, the president of Amar provides the supplier with
instructions as to shipment and advises that the "Dubai
Office"/Viva has been informed to open a letter of credit. This
evidence establishes that Amar performed one of Viva's alleged
buying agent responsibilities, shipping instructions, as set
forth in the Agreement.
As stated previously, the financial relationship between the
parties confuses much of the evidence which would establish a
principal-agent relationship. Because of the financing
requirements, the invoice terms are obscured. Many of the
invoices list Viva as the buyer and Amar as the consignee while
others list Amar as the buyer. These designations are often
requirements necessary when establishing letters of credit.
Thus, an examination of the commercial invoices is not helpful in
this situation.
The Agreement states that Viva is responsible for securing
foreign suppliers for Amar, ensuring that the foreign suppliers
ship the goods pursuant to the terms and conditions of Amar's
order, ensuring the goods are received according to Amar's
requirements including conforming to U.S. regulations, ensuring
the foreign suppliers ship the goods as instructed by Amar and
represent Amar in negotiations and settlement with the foreign
suppliers concerning defective, damaged or shortage of ordered
merchandise. Amar notes that its president periodically travels
abroad to review samples of fabric, meet potential foreign
suppliers, and negotiate prices on behalf of Amar. Amar states
that Viva arranges these meetings and based on Amar's
instructions often narrows the styles and colors of fabric from
which Amar will choose. Amar states that it reserves the right
to make and actually makes all the decisions as to ultimate
choice of fabric and pricing.
However, Amar's president informed Customs that while abroad
he normally picks out his own manufactures and orders directly
from them. Additionally, Customs understands that samples of the
goods and the purchased goods are shipped directly from the
supplier to Amar. Moreover, Customs understands that Viva does
not have personnel in the foreign suppliers countries and,
therefore, is unable to exercise quality or quantity control as
stated in the Agreement. No evidence was presented that Viva
represents Amar in any dealings with the foreign suppliers other
than in providing the financing and marine insurance for Amar's
purchases. Based on the evidence presented, Amar has not
established that Viva was acting as a bona fide buying agent.
Therefore, we conclude that the fees paid to Viva do not
constitute bona fide buying commissions, and are, therefore,
included in the transaction value of the imported merchandise.
2. Finance Charges
Next, we must determine whether the finance charges, i.e.,
letter of credit interest for 30 days (#4 above), the trust
receipt interest (#6 above), and overdue interest (#9 above) are
excluded from transaction value based on the criteria set forth
in T.D. 85-111 dated July 17, 1985, and the Statement of
Clarification for T.D. 85-111 dated July 17, 1989 (54 F.R. 29973)
(the "Clarification"). T.D. 85-111 states that interest
payments, whether or not included in the price actually paid or
payable for imported merchandise, shall not be regarded as part
of the customs value provided that:
(a) The charges are distinguished from the price of the
goods;
(b) The financing arrangement was made in writing;
(c) Where required, the buyer can demonstrate that
- Such goods are actually sold at the price declared as
the price actually paid or payable, and
- The claimed rate of interest does not exceed the level
for such transactions prevailing in the country where,
and when the financing was provided.
T.D. 85-111 is to apply whether the financing is provided by the
seller, a bank or another natural or legal person, and if
appropriate, where the merchandise is valued under a method other
than transaction value.
In the Clarification, Customs stated that for purposes of
T.D. 85-111, "the term 'interest' encompasses only bona fide
interest charges, not simply the notion of interest arising out
of delayed payment." Customs further added that "bona fide
interest charges are those payments that are carried on the
importer's books as interest expenses in conformance with
generally accepted accounting principles." There appears to be
no dispute that the finance charge payments at issue are "bona
fide interest charges." Customs audit indicated that the finance
charges are carried on Amar's books as interest in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles. Thus, the finance
charges are bona fide interest charges.
You cite to HRL 543765, dated August 8, 1986, and HRL 544610
dated December 21, 1991, for the principal that the interest
charges are not those contemplated by T.D. 85-111 and the
Clarification and should be dutiable as part of the price
actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise. It is our
position that these cases are factually distinguishable from the
instant case.
In HRL 543765, the importer entered into a written agreement
with a foreign manufacturer whereby the importer included in its
payment for the imported merchandise interest charges paid by the
foreign manufacturer to a piece goods vendor in connection with
the manufacturer's financing of its purchase of the piece goods.
The importer's position was that pursuant to T.D. 85-111 the
interest charges were non-dutiable. This decision stated that:
The reimbursement by the importer of the manufacturer's
interest payments to the vendor will not confer upon
the importer the benefits that one would enjoy upon
entering into a financing arrangement whereby payment
in full is delayed and the interest which accrues
represents the time value of money. We view the
interest charges to be paid by the manufacturer to the
vendor as merely an expense of doing business which
will subsequently be passed on by the manufacturer to
the importer as part of the price for the imported
merchandise.
Thus, HRL 543765 determined that the reimbursement by the
importer of the interest charges paid by the manufacturer to the
vendor were dutiable as part of transaction value pursuant to
402(b) of the TAA. See also, HRL 544610 dated December 21,
1991, which determined that interest charges incurred by the
importer for fabric and trim used in the manufacture of the
imported merchandise are not the type of interest charges
contemplated by T.D. 85-111, and, thus were dutiable as part of
the price actually paid or payable.
An amount paid by an importer to a foreign seller, which
purportedly represents reimbursement for the interest charges
that the foreign seller pays to a third party, is dutiable.
Generra Sportswear Co. v. United States, 8 CAFC 132, 905 F.2d 377
(1990), and Moss Mfg. Co. V. United States, 896 F.2d 535, 539
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Such a reimbursement does not fall within the
purview of T.D. 85-111 and the Clarification. In the instant
case, the interest charges are not for interest charges paid to
purported buying agent or seller as reimbursement for the
interest charges it paid the foreign manufacturer for piece goods
or fabric and trim used in the manufacturer of the imported
goods, but are interest charges paid to finance the importer's
purchase of imported merchandise. Therefore, we do not find HRL
543765 and HRL 544610 relevant in this situation.
One of the criteria which must be satisfied for the finance
charges to be excluded is that they are distinguished from the
price of the goods. As evidenced from the submitted documents,
the finance charges are distinguished from the price of the
imported merchandise. At importation, the invoice lists the
price of the goods imported. Thereafter, a separate invoice is
sent from Viva to Amar listing the finance charges that accrued
for the imported merchandise. Thus, there is no question as to
what constitutes the price of the goods from the finance charges
for the goods. Next, the financing agreement must be in
writing. In this situation, the specific terms and conditions of
the financing arrangement between the parties is contained in the
January 3, 1992 Agreement. The Agreement sets forth the exact
rate of interest chargeable over various time periods.
You claim that the interest rate for the finance charges is
excessive compared to the prevailing rate in the U.A.E.. You
compared the Agreement rates to those of the U.A.E. Central Bank
which ranged from 7.87% to 9.84%. Amar contends that using the
U.A.E. Central Bank rates in this situation is unsuitable. The
U.A.E. Central Bank rates are akin to the Federal Reserve bank-to-bank rate. Amar states that the relative positions of the
parties must be considered when deciding whether the interest
rate charged is appropriate and that a comparison should be made
for rates charged by banks to commercial customers in the U.A.E..
T.D. 85-111 states with specificity that the importer must
demonstrate that "[t]he claimed rate of interest does not exceed
the level for such transactions prevailing in the country where,
and at the time when the financing was provided." Thus, it is
our position that the comparison should be made to similar
transactions. To compare bank-to-bank interest rates like the
U.A.E. Central Bank rate is unacceptable. The comparison of
interest rates should be made on a similar transaction level.
Amar has submitted a faxed letter from Viva which lists
examples of lending rates for various banking institutions in the
U.A.E. for prime commercial customers. The rates range from 10%
to 11% which Amar states are intended for unsecured loans to
commercial customers with ample credit and excellent credit
histories or long-terms associations with the banks in question.
Amar and Viva negotiated the 12.5% interest rate when Amar was a
relatively new company with no credit history and a lack of
substantial assets. Thus, it was difficult for Amar to secure
financing. Amar contends that the slight difference between what
the banks could offer and what was negotiated between the parties
is not excessive in light of Amar's position. Amar also
submitted its newest negotiated Agreement with Viva in which the
interest rates were negotiated down to 10.5%. Based on the rates
between banks and commercial customers submitted by Amar in its
January 6, 1994 submission, we conclude that the interest rates
between Amar and Viva are appropriate, reasonable, and reflect
the level for such transactions prevailing in the country where,
and at the time when such financing was provided. Because all
the criteria of T.D. 85-111 and the Clarification have been meet,
the finance charges are not included in the price actually paid
or payable for the imported merchandise.
Generally, letter of credit confirmation charges are not
included in the price actually paid or payable for imported
merchandise. You state that normally letter of credit
confirmation charges range from $25.00 to $75.00. In this case,
the letter of credit confirmation charge is 2% of the cost of the
goods which you contend is an excessive fee for this charge.
Thus, you disallow this charge and include it in the price
actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise. The 2%
letter of credit confirmation charge relates to the expense
incurred by Viva to secure a letter of credit for Amar's benefit.
Without statutory authority we can not include a charge in the
price of the goods merely because the costs may be excessive. As
there is no authority to add the letter of credit confirmation
charge to the price actually paid or payable, the letter of
credit confirmation charge is not included in the transaction
value of the imported goods.
HOLDING:
The evidence submitted is insufficient to support a finding
that Viva is Amar's buying agent. Therefore, we conclude that
the fees paid to Viva do not constitute bona fide buying
commissions and are, therefore, included in the transaction value
of the imported merchandise. As the criteria of T.D. 85-111 and
the Clarification has been meet, the finance charges are not
included in the price actually paid or payable for the imported
merchandise. The 2% letter of credit confirmation charge is also
not included in the price actually paid or payable.
This decision should be mailed by your office to the
internal advice requester no later than 60 days from the date of
this letter. On that date 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, Freedom of Informational
Act and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
Acting Director
International Trade Compliance
Division