RR:IT:VA 546273 KCC
TARIFF No.: Various
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
2nd & Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest 1101-96-100015;
Cutting Line For Cut-to-Length and Rewinding machine;
transaction value; international freight; insurance; HRLs
544538 and 543827; foreign inland freight; 19 CFR
152(a)(5); T.D. 84-235; through bill of lading; U.S. inland
freight; 19 CFR 152.103(i)(1); IA 63/83( HRL 074909); HRL
085252; Franklin Industries, Inc.; Baldt Anchor, Chain &
Forge Division of Boston Metals Co.; GRI 2(a); unfinished
machine; note 4 to section XVI; functional unit; 19 CFR
174.13(5); 9802.00.80; 19 CFR 10.16(a), 10.16(b) and
10.24; HRL 555671
Dear Port Director:
This is in regard to the Application for Further Review of
Protest 1101-96-100015, which concerns the appraisement of,
tariff classification of, and applicability of subheading
9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS), to a "Cutting Line For Cut-to-Length and Rewinding"
machine.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue is "Cutting Line For Cut-to-Length
and Rewinding" machine imported by North American Stainless
("NAS"). It is a single machine that performs two separate
functions: (1) it cuts (and then stacks) coils of steel to
specific lengths; and (2) it rewinds coil that has been "skewed."
Because of shipping problems with NAS's order, the merchandise
was divided and shipped on two vessels which arrived at two
different ports several days apart. The Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, importation entered into the U.S. on March 13,
1994, and the Norfolk, Virginia, importation entered into the
U.S. on March 19, 1994. The two entries were filed by local
brokers, but both entries were the product of NAS's national
broker. The same invoice, which was coded to indicate which
machine components were unladen in Philadelphia and Norfolk was
used in both entries. The invoice describes the imported machine
as "CUTTING LINE FOR CUT-TO-LENGTH AND REWINDING." The
Philadelphia entry, which is the subject of this protest,
contains a second corrected invoice ("corrected invoice") and a
packing list with a more detailed description of the imported
machine components as "PARTS of 'CUTTING LINE FOR CUT-TO-LENGTH
AND REWINDING (Equipment)'...." From the coding, values and
weights, it is clear that essentially half of the Cutting Line
for Cut-to Length and Rewinding machine was imported through
Philadelphia and half in Norfolk.
Even though components for the machine arrived at separate
ports, the machine was entered by NAS, as if complete, in both
ports under subheading 8461.50.80, HTSUS, which provides for
other machine tools for sawing or cutting-off. NAS claims the
merchandise is appraised under 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.
NAS states that the price actually paid or payable for the
imported merchandise as set forth on the commercial invoice
includes costs which are to be excluded from transaction value.
These costs are identified on the corrected invoice as:
"Mechanical Engineering and Miscellaneous" charges for
"Training at destination and Assembly (Direction &
Supervision), Start-up, Unloading and Loading procedures &
reception" which were prorated between Philadelphia and
Norfolk;
"Transportation and Insurance" charges for "Inland
Transportation to spanish -- port, Sea transportation to
U.S. Port; inland transportation in USA to NAS and
Insurance" which were prorated between Philadelphia and
Norfolk.
You separately classified the components for the machine,
entered in Philadelphia, under the following subheadings:
subheading 8462.29.00, HTSUS, which provides for other
machine tools for working metal by bending, folding,
straightening or flattening (including presses);
subheading 8462.39.00, HTSUS, which provides for other
machines tools for working metal by shearing (including
presses), other than combined punching and shearing
machines;
subheading 8479.89.90, HTSUS, which provides for other
machines and mechanical appliances having individual
functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this
chapter;
subheading 8504.31.20, HTSUS, which provides for unrated
electrical transformers, having a power handling capacity
not exceeding 1 kVA;
subheading 8537.10.90, HTSUS, which provides for other bases
for electric control and the distribution of electricity,
for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 V; and.
subheading 8213.00.90, HTSUS, which provides for other
scissors, tailors' shears and similar shears, valued over
$1.75/dozen.
You appraised the merchandise pursuant to transaction value
under 402(b) of the TAA and excluded the "Mechanical Engineering
and Miscellaneous" charges from the corrected commercial invoice.
However, you did not allow deductions from the corrected
commercial invoice for the freight costs and insurance.
The purchase agreement for the cutting line for cut-to-length and rewinding machine states that the terms of sale are
C.I.F. (Incoterms 1990). The commercial invoice states that the
terms of sale are C.I.F. Ghent, but does not provide any breakout
of charges for freight and insurance. Additionally, the
submitted corrected invoice does not list terms of sale, but does
separately breakout costs for the above described "Mechanical
Engineering and Miscellaneous" and "Transportation and
Insurance." As an attachment to the protest, NAS submitted three
freight forwarder's bills which show the port of origin as
Bilbao, Spain and the destination port as Philadelphia. We note
that the conditions for shipment on all three freight forwarder's
bills are stated as "C&F." Additionally, one of the bills
identifies a separate charge for U.S. inland freight costs from
Philadelphia to Ghent.
Another NAS claim concerns the category of components listed
on page 2 of the corrected invoice described as "Electrical
Equipment & Electrical Engineering: - Direct current drives,
alternating current, Drives automation equipment, Control Desks,
motors, wiring - Transformer and distribution Center." NAS
states that the value of servodrivers with the electrical cabinet
and their spare parts, transformer & distribution center, motor's
control center, shut-off center and isolation transformers were
included in this category but that these components were not
imported with the cut-to-length and rewinding equipment. NAS
states that these components were manufactured in the U.S. and
were supplied directly from the U.S. manufacturer to NAS. NAS
states that the packing list does not indicate that these
components were part of the shipment Additionally, NAS submitted
signed statements from FAGOR, the foreign manufacturer, and
itself stating that these components were not part of the
shipment.
NAS also claims that the electric controlling systems for
the "Strip Centering" and "Automatic Coil Centering" sections of
the "Cutting Line" machine were manufactured in the U.S. by North
American Manufacturing Co. of Cleveland, Ohio, and are eligible
for preferential tariff treatment under subheading 9802.00.80,
HTSUS. In support of this claim, protestant submits an
assembler's declaration, endorsement by the importer, a copy of
the invoice from the U.S. manufacturer of the components to the
Spanish supplier, and a copy of the airway bill showing shipment
of the U.S. components from Cleveland, Ohio, to Bilbao, Spain.
In addition, the work performed on the components imported into
Spain to complete the "Strip Centering Device on the Uncoiler" is
described in a fax from FAGOR as follows:
The electronic control system and all its components
are simply bolted onto the appropriate frames and
gantries directly over the passing line of the strip,
by means of ordinary metric fasteners such as screws,
nuts and washers as required, using the drilled and
tapped holes provided by the manufacturer of the
components. The control box is then mounted in an
accessible part of the machine.
The control box is then temporarily wired into the
electrical circuit of the machine for testing purposes.
The final electrical installation is carried out after
the complete assembly of the machine at its
destination. The hydraulic valves and manifold are
supplied already mounted on a stand with all the
plumbing complete. This assembly is placed on the bed
frame of our machine and tied down using ordinary
metric fasteners, through the holes provided on the
valve stand.
This assembly is then connected to the hydraulic
cylinder, by means of two flexible rubber hoses.
FAGOR further states that other components of the imported
equipment are similarly mounted by means of metric fasteners.
We note that in a letter to you dated April 22, 1996, NAS
has withdrawn from its protest the alleged "third mistake of fact
or other inadvertence" concerning the allocation of value to
merchandise which is the subject of this protest. Thus, this
decision does not address that contention.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence submitted establishes that the
international freight, insurance, foreign inland freight,
and U.S. inland freight charges are excluded from the price
actually paid or payable in determining transaction value.
2. Whether a deduction should be made from the price actually
paid or payable for the value of servodrivers with the
electrical cabinet and their spare parts, transformer &
distribution center, motor's control center, shut-off center
and isolation transformers in determining transaction value.
3. Whether separate classification under the HTSUS of the
components to the cutting line for cut-to-length and
rewinding machine was proper.
4. Whether the United States-made components that are shipped
to Spain for incorporation into the cut-to-length and
rewinding equipment are entitled to subheading 9802.00.80,
HTSUS, treatment when returned into the U.S.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
1. Valuation
The preferred method of appraisement is transaction value
which is defined by 402(b)(1) of the TAA (19 U.S.C. 1401a(b))
as "the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when
sold for exportation to the United States..." plus certain
additions specified in 402(b)(1) (A) through (E). 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 from the
country of exportation to the place of importation in the
United States) made, or to be made, for imported merchandise
by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the seller.
You excluded the "Mechanical Engineering and Miscellaneous"
charges from the corrected commercial invoice. Thus, the costs
at issue are the international freight costs from the country of
exportation, Bilbao, Spain to Philadelphia, the Spanish and U.S.
inland freight costs, and the insurance charges.
Transportation costs and insurance costs pertaining to the
international movement of merchandise from the country of
exportation, to the extent included in the price actually paid or
payable, are to be excluded from the total payment made for
imported merchandise appraised under transaction value. These
costs are not the estimated costs, but the actual costs paid to
the freight forwarder, transport company, etc.
In HRL 544538, issued December 17, 1992, Customs
acknowledged that pursuant to 402(b)(4)(A) the cost of
international transportation is to be excluded from the price
actually paid or payable for imported merchandise. However,
Customs explained that in determining the cost of the
international transportation or freight, it always looked to
documentation from the freight company, as opposed to the
documentation between the buyer and the seller which often
contains estimated transportation costs or charges. In essence,
Customs requires documentation from the freight company because
the actual cost, and not the estimated charges, for the freight
is the amount that Customs excludes from the price actually paid
or payable. See also HRL 543827, issued March 9, 1987, in which
Customs determined that the proper deduction from the price
actually paid or payable for marine insurance was the amount
actually paid to the insurance company by the seller, as opposed
to the amount paid by the related importer/buyer; and HRL 542467
dated August 13, 1981.
As to the terms of sale for the subject merchandise, the
documents submitted confuse rather than clarify the situation.
The purchase agreement states that the terms of sale are C.I.F.
(Incoterms 1990). The first commercial invoice states that the
terms of sale are C.I.F. Ghent, but does not provide any breakout
of charges for freight and insurance. The submitted corrected
invoice does not list terms of sale, but does separately breakout
costs for the above described "Mechanical Engineering and
Miscellaneous" and "Transportation and Insurance." Also, in the
"Transportation and Insurance" category none of the individual
transportation or insurance costs is separately identified.
Finally, the three freight forwarder's bills state that the terms
of sale are "C&F."
Based on the evidence submitted, i.e., the purchase
agreement, corrected commercial invoice and freight forwarders
bill, it appears that the terms of sale are C.I.F. Normally,
freight and insurance charges are included in the C.I.F. price
for the goods. In this case, the corrected commercial invoice
identifies that international transportation from the Spanish
port to the U.S. and insurance are included in the invoice price
for the imported merchandise. However, it does not separately
identify these costs. NAS has provided documentation, the
freight forwarder's bills, identifying the actual cost for the
international transportation from Bilbao, Spain to Philadelphia.
However, there is no evidence available which identifies the
actual insurance costs. The only statement identifying the
insurance cost is made in NAS's protest:
This [freight forwarder's bills] does not include insurance,
which is listed on the [corrected] Commercial Invoice but
not separated from the transport charges and at a very
modest rate would be .15% x 110% of the CIF value or
approximately: EPS515,082.
Without a separate identification of the insurance costs, we are
unable to deduct this cost from the total payment. However, as
NAS has provided evidence of the actual transportation cost from
Bilbao, Spain to Philadelphia, this cost should be deducted from
the total payment for the subject merchandise.
As to foreign inland freight charges incident to the
international shipment of merchandise, Customs' regulations are
found in 152.103(a)(5), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
152.103(a)(5)), as amended in T.D. 84-235 (November 29, 1984),
which states:
(i) Ex-factory sales. If the price actually paid or payable
by the buyer to the seller for the imported merchandise
does not include a charge for foreign inland freight
and other charges for services incident to the
international shipment of merchandise (an ex-factory
price), those charges will not be added to the price.
(ii) Sales other than ex-factory. As a general rule, in
those situations where the price actually paid or
payable for imported merchandise includes a charge for
foreign inland freight, whether or not itemized
separately on the invoices or other commercial
documents, that charge will be part of the transaction
value to the extent included in the price. However,
charges for foreign inland freight and other services
incident to the shipment of the merchandise to the
United States may be considered incident to the
international shipment of that merchandise within the
meaning of 152.102(f) if they are identified
separately and they occur after the merchandise has
been sold for export to the United States and placed
with a carrier for through shipment to the United
States.
(iii) Evidence of sale for export and placement for
through shipment. A sale for export and placement
for through shipment to the United States under
paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section shall be
established by means of a through bill of lading
to be presented to the district director. Only in
those situations where it clearly would be
impossible to ship merchandise on a through bill
of lading (e.g., shipments via the seller's own
conveyance) will other documentation satisfactory
to the district director showing a
sale for export to
the United States
and placement for
through shipment to
the United States be
accepted in lieu of
a through bill of
lading....
The intent of the T.D. 84-235 was to permit foreign inland
freight to be nondutiable where such charges are identified
separately, and they occur after merchandise has been sold for
export to the United States and placed with a carrier for through
shipment to the United States. To ensure that the above criteria
have been met Customs mandated that a "through bill of lading" be
presented. "Through bill of lading" was defined in field
instructions dated February 6, 1985, as "a contract, waybill,
invoice, issued by one carrier or forwarder which controls the
manner of shipment from the point or place of manufacture or
origin to the U.S. port of importation or beyond (although the
shipment may extend over two or more lines of connecting
carriers), shows the origin and destination of the shipment,
consignor and consignee, route of movement and applicable rate or
rates." Without the evidence of a through bill of lading no
deduction may be made for foreign inland freight charges.
Based on the evidence, i.e., the freight forwarder's bills,
submitted, there is not a through shipment of the merchandise
from the Spanish manufacturer in Mondragon to the United States.
The freight forwarders bills show shipment from the Spanish port
of Bilbao to Philadelphia. As such, there is no document which
meets the definition of a "through bill of lading" as required by
19 CFR 152.103(a)(5)(ii) and (iii). Without such evidence no
deduction may be made for foreign inland freight charges.
With regard to the costs that are incurred after the
merchandise has been imported, 402(b)(3) of the TAA states that:
The transaction value of imported merchandise does not
include any of the following, if identified separately from
the price actually paid or payable and from any cost or
other item referred to in paragraph (1):
(A) Any reasonable cost or charge that is incurred for--
(i) the construction, erection, assembly, or
maintenance of, or the technical assistance
provided with respect to, the merchandise after
its importation into the United States; or
(ii) the transportation of the merchandise after such
importation.
See also, 152.103(i)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
152.103(i)(1). The above cited statutory provision clearly
states that the transaction value of imported merchandise does
not include any reasonable cost incurred for the transportation
of the imported merchandise after its importation that is
identified separately from the price actually paid or payable.
The corrected commercial invoice separately identifies the
U.S. inland transportation from Philadelphia to Ghent.
Additionally, the actual U.S. inland transportation cost is
identified on the freight forwarder's bill. Therefore, the cost
for U.S. inland transportation from Philadelphia to Ghent is
excluded from the price actually paid or payable in determining
transaction value.
2. Servodrivers with the Electrical Cabinet and their spare
parts, Transformer & Distribution center, Motor's Control
Center, Shut-off Center and Isolation Transformers
NAS maintains that the above components were not imported
but their value was mistakenly included on page 2 of the
corrected invoice in the category "Electrical Equipment &
Electrical Engineering." In fact, NAS claims that these items
were sourced domestically and not from the foreign manufacturer.
Therefore, NAS contends that the value of these components should
be deducted from the invoice price in determining transaction
value. As evidence that the value of these components was
mistakenly included in the invoice price, NAS submitted signed
statements from itself and the foreign manufacturer attesting
that these components were not part of the subject shipment.
Additionally, NAS states that an examination of the packing list
will show that none of these components is listed therein.
We do not find this evidence compelling. First, the
description of the components on the packing lists is not
conclusive. Also, other than the self-serving statements, no
evidence such as purchase orders, was provided establishing that
these items were sourced domestically. Finally, we find no
evidence establishing that the servodrivers with the electrical
cabinet and their spare parts, transformer & distribution center,
motor's control center, shut-off center and isolation
transformers were included in the category "Electrical Equipment
& Electrical Engineering: - Direct current drives, alternating
current, Drives automation equipment, Control Desks, motors,
wiring - Transformer and distribution Center." Thus, we cannot
exclude the value of components from the invoice price which we
do not know were included in the invoice in the first place.
3. HTSUS Classification
NAS claims the Philadelphia and Norfolk entries were part of
an "installment shipment" as defined in 141.82, Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 141.82), because the entries were covered by
a single contract, shipped from one consignor to one consignee
and arrived at the port of entry within ten (10) consecutive
days. Additionally, NAS claims that the entry subject to this
protest constitutes a "separate entr(y) of (the) same shipment"
as described in 141.84(c), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
141.84(c)). Pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation (GRI)
2(a), HTSUS, NAS also contends that the Philadelphia entry is an
unfinished Cutting Line for Cut-to-Length Rewinding" machine,
and, therefore, classified under subheading 8461.50.80, HTSUS.
In IA 63/83 (Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 074909), dated
November 5, 1984, we addressed a similar issue under the Tariff
Schedules of the United States (TSUS). In this decision, we
noted Customs obligation to classify and assess duty on
merchandise in its condition as imported--that is, merchandise
which arrives in the customs territory in the same shipment. We
held that merchandise laden aboard separate trucks which arrived
within the customs territory of the U.S. on the same day would be
considered, for classification and appraisement purposes, as
having arrived at the same time, or as comprising a single
shipment. See also, Franklin Industries, Inc. v. United States, 1
C.I.T. 349 (1981) (wherein the U.S. Court of International Trade
held that to enjoy classification under a single tariff item
number all components necessary to the completion of a particular
article must be imported in the same shipment); United States v.
Baldt Anchor, Chain & Forge Division of Boston Metals Co., 59
CCPA 122, C.A.D. 1051, 429 F.2d 1403 (1972). This principle
applies as well for purposes of classifying merchandise under the
HTSUS. See, HRL 085252 dated September 29, 1989. Accordingly,
the components for the Cutting Line Cut-to-Length and Rewinding
machine, which arrived on different vessels, on different days
and at different ports, cannot be considered as a single shipment
for classification purposes.
According to a packing list contained in the file (and
confirmed in a telephone conversation with the protestant), the
Philadelphia shipment included an uncoiler, hydraulic panel
(uncoiler), hydraulic panel (strip centering), hydraulic flexible
pipes, anchor bolts, leveler protectors and leveler bridge top.
It appears that a device called a "flying shear" was also a part
of this shipment. There is no descriptive literature contained
in the file describing this merchandise.
Thus, while the port's separate classification of the
machine's components was correct, we are unable to confirm the
correctness of the liquidated provisions. However, it seems
clear that the Philadelphia shipment would not constitute a GRI
2(a), HTSUS, "unfinished" machine, which would require that the
components for the machine be classified in the same provision as
the complete machine (the complete machine is likely a note 4 to
section XVI, HTSUS, "functional unit," and therefore, the
Philadelphia shipment cannot be considered an "unfinished"
machine). See, HRL 087077 dated March 27, 1991. As the
protestant has failed to provide "[a] specific description of the
merchandise affected by the decision as to which protest is
made," the components are classified as liquidated and this
portion of the protest is denied. See, 174.13(5), Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(5)).
4. Subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS
Subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, provides a partial duty
exemption for:
Articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of
fabricated components, the product of the United
States, which (a) were exported in condition ready for
assembly without further fabrication, (b) have not lost
their physical identity in such articles by change in
form, shape, or otherwise, and (c) have not been
advanced in value or improved in condition abroad
except by being assembled and except by operations
incidental to the assembly process, such as cleaning,
lubricating and painting.
All three requirements of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, must
be satisfied before a component may receive a duty allowance. An
article entered under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, is subject to
duty upon the full value of the imported article, less the cost
or value of the U.S. components assembled therein, provided there
has been compliance with the documentary requirements of 10.24,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.24).
10.16(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.16(a)), provides
that the assembly operations performed abroad may consist of any
method used to join or fit together solid components, such as
welding, gluing or the use of fasteners, and may be preceded,
accompanied, or followed by operations incidental to the assembly
process. 10.16(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.16(b)),
provides that operations incidental to the assembly process
whether performed before, during, or after assembly, do not
constitute further fabrication, and shall not preclude the
application o the exemption. Operations specified in this
provision as incidental to the assembly process include cutting
to length of wire, thread, tape foil and similar products
exported in continuous length.
We find that the operations performed in Spain which result
in securely joining components together by fasteners are
considered acceptable assembly operations pursuant to 19 CFR
10.16(a). See, HRL 555671 dated March 15, 1991, which held that
operations performed to create wooden venetian blinds including
fitting component parts with screws were considered proper
assembly operations or operations incidental to the assembly
process.
Accordingly, since the record reflects that the documentary
requirements under 19 CFR 10.24 have been satisfied, the claim
under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, should be allowed for the
components manufactured in the U.S. Additionally, these
components are not assists pursuant to 402(h)(1)(A) of the TAA.
The components are manufactured in the U.S. by North American
Manufacturing Co. ("NAM"), purchased by the foreign manufacturer
and shipped to Spain as evidenced by NAM's invoice to the foreign
manufacturer. Thus, there is no evidence that NAS, the buyer,
supplied these components free of charge or at a reduced cost to
the foreign manufacturer.
HOLDING:
Absent a through bill of lading, the charges for Spanish
inland freight are considered part of the price actually paid or
payable regardless of whether the costs were itemized separately
on the commercial invoice. Accordingly, there is no authority to
permit a deduction for the Spanish inland freight costs from the
manufacturer to the port of exportation. Additionally, no
deduction should be made for insurance. However, the actual
costs for U.S. inland transportation from Philadelphia to Ghent
and for the international transportation from Bilbao, Spain to
Philadelphia are excluded from the price actually paid or payable
in determining transaction value. Based on the evidence
submitted, a deduction for the value of the servodrivers with the
electrical cabinet and their spare parts, transformer &
distribution center, motor's control center, shut-off center and
isolation transformers is improper. You are instructed to GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART this portion of the protest as directed.
The components for the Cutting Line Cut-to-Length and
Rewinding machine, which arrived on different vessels, on
different days and at different ports, cannot be considered as a
single shipment for classification purposes. Separate
classification of the machine's components was correct. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 174.13(5), the protestant has failed to provide "[a]
specific description of the merchandise affected by the decision
as to which protest is made." Thus, this portion of the protest
is DENIED.
On the basis of the information provided, we find that the
claim for subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, treatment should be
granted since the cut-to-length and rewinding equipment was
assembled in whole or in part of fabricated components which were
exported from the U.S. in a condition ready for assembly, and
they were not advanced in value or improved in condition abroad
except by being assembled. You are instructed to GRANT this
portion of the protest.
In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065 dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision, together with the Customs Form 19,
should be mailed by your office 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 mailing the 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, Freedom of Information Act and other public
access channels.
Sincerely,
Acting Director
International Trade Compliance
Division