CLA-2 RR:TC:SM 559454 BLS
U.S. Customs Service
District Director
477 Michigan Avenue
Room 200
Detroit, MI 48226
RE: Reconsideration of Application for Further Review of Protest
No. 3801-94-106710 concerning
the applicability of subheading 9801.00.10,
HTSUS, to Ford Taurus station wagons; detrimental reliance;
uniform
and established practice; 19 U.S.C. 1315(d); Peugeot
Motors; General
Note 3(d)
Dear Sir/Madame:
This is a request for reconsideration of a decision on an
Application for Further Review of the above-referenced protest
which was timely filed on behalf of Auto Enterprises, Inc.,
against your decision denying duty-free treatment under
subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, of Ford Taurus Station Wagons (1994
models). The subject merchandise was entered on March 29, 1994
through the port of Detroit and was liquidated on August 19,
1994. In our decision dated June 29, 1995 (Headquarters Ruling
Letter (HRL) 558983), we directed that the protest be denied in
full.
FACTS:
The merchandise which is the subject of this protest
consists of 1994 Ford Taurus model vehicles imported from Canada.
Protestant submits that the vehicles were assembled in a U.S.
foreign trade zone ("FTZ") (assembly plant in Chicago, Illinois,
foreign trade subzone 22B) and then shipped directly from the FTZ
to Canada where they were used primarily as rental vehicles prior
to being imported into the U.S. Upon entry into the U.S., the
vehicles were classified under heading 8703, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and assessed a duty rate
of 2.5 percent ad valorem.
- 2 -
Protestant states that the vehicles entered into the
commerce of Canada in many cases as a result of purchases by
rental car companies for incorporation into their fleets.
Protestant further states that after a certain period of time
many of
these vehicles are then purchased by U.S. Department of
Transportation-licensed importers, such as Protestant, for
reimportation into the U.S. These vehicles are then serviced to
satisfy U.S. DOT standards and sold for use in the U.S. market.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether there is an established and uniform practice to
provide duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS,
to vehicles which are produced in an FTZ from U.S. and foreign
components, exported directly from the FTZ and then imported into
the U.S.
(2) Whether Protestant has substantiated its claim for
detrimental reliance.
(3) Whether the subject vehicles qualify for assessment of
duty based only on their applicable foreign value content, as
provided in General Note 3(d), HTSUS.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, provides for the free entry of
U.S. products that are exported and returned without having been
advanced in value or improved in condition by any means while
abroad, provided the documentary requirements of section 10.1,
Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 10.1), are met. The courts have
held that, while some change in the condition of the product
while it is abroad is permissible, operations which either
advance the value or improve the condition of the exported
product render it ineligible for duty-free entry upon return to
the U.S. Border Brokerage Co., v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct.
50, C.D. 4052, 314 F. Supp. 788 (1970), appeal dismissed, 58 CCPA
165 (1970). Moreover, compliance with section 10.1(a) is
mandatory and a condition precedent to recovery unless compliance
has been waived or is impossible. Maple Leaf Petroleum, Ltd., v.
United States, 25 CCPA 5, T.D. 48976 (1937). The basis for
waiver of the required documentation is predicated upon the
district director being satisfied by the production of other
evidence as to the U.S.-origin of the merchandise and its
eligibility under subheading
- 3 -
9801.00.10, HTSUS.
The sixth proviso to section 3 of the Foreign Trade Zone Act
("FTZA") of June 18, 1934 (49 Stat. 9), as amended, states as
follows:
That articles produced or manufactured in a
zone
and exported therefrom shall on subsequent
importation into the customs territory of the
United States be subject to the import laws
applicable to like articles manufactured in a
foreign country, except that articles produced
or
manufactured in a zone exclusively with the use
of domestic merchandise, the identity of which
has
been maintained in accordance with the second
proviso of this section may, on such
importation,
be entered as American goods returned.
(Emphasis
added).
Customs addressed the issue concerning the dutiable status
of articles made with foreign components in a Foreign Trade Zone
that are imported after having been exported from the zone in
C.S.D. 95-3, 29 Cust. Bull. 11 (February 8, 1995). In this case,
automobiles were made in an FTZ using some parts of foreign
origin. Those parts were admitted into the zone in either
privileged foreign status or non-privileged foreign status.
After manufacture, the automobiles were exported to Canada
without any duty having been paid on those parts. After that
exportation, the automobiles were imported into the U.S. The
issue in C.S.D. 95-3 was whether the sixth proviso to section 3
of the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81c(a)) requires duty
to be assessed on the full value of an automobile made in a zone
with U.S. and foreign parts exported and then returned to the
U.S. In this decision, Customs held that the automobile is
dutiable on its full value at the appropriate most-favored nation
rate of duty on its importation back into the U.S. See also 19
CFR 146.67(e).
While in this reconsideration Protestant does not seek to
contest the holding in C.S.D. 95-3, it argues that the vehicles
should be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading
9801.00.10, HTSUS, when they are returned to the U.S., based on
the existence of an established and uniform practice and
detrimental reliance, and contests Customs denial of duty-free
treatment for the subject entries. In this regard,
- 4
-
Protestant further contends that Customs erred in HRL 558893 in
stating that its "long-standing position" has been that "goods
which are produced in a FTZ from
both U.S. and foreign components are not considered products of
the U.S., unless duty has been paid on the value of the foreign
components when exported from the zone, or the good is comprised
wholly of domestic components or materials."
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 553240 dated March 5,
1985, a truck was assembled in a foreign trade zone, using both
"privileged domestic" and "privileged foreign parts." The truck
was withdrawn from the foreign trade zone on a weekly
formal entry covering the production of additional trucks.
Duties were paid on the assembled foreign merchandise having
privileged foreign zone status upon withdrawal of the truck from
the FTZ for domestic consumption during 1982. The truck was
subsequently exported to Germany and then returned to the U.S.
Customs held in HRL 553240 that since the truck was first
transferred to the Customs territory of the U.S., and duties were
paid on the foreign components, prior to being exported to
Germany, upon return to the U.S., the truck was eligible for
duty-free treatment under the American Goods Returned provision.
We concluded that the foreign merchandise used in the assembly of
the truck had lost its foreign character and was considered to
have been substantially transformed by being merged into the
assembled truck. "The merger occurred in the FTZ located in the
U.S. and the substantial transformation was complete when the
truck was entered for consumption in the U.S. and duties paid on
the privileged foreign merchandise." We also stated that "If the
truck had been exported to Germany from the zone without the
intervening transfer to the Customs territory, the truck would
have remained fully dutiable under the appropriate tariff
classification.' (See also HRL 556976 dated June 9, 1994.)
Protestant contends that the facts in HRL 553240 are not
comparable to the present situation since the vehicle in that
case was not exported directly from a FTZ as in the instant case
but passed first through the customs territory. In addition,
Protestant argues that the "dicta" which Customs cites in support
of its claim of a long-standing position in this regard does not
explain how the appropriate classification would be determined,
nor does it consider that the country from which the goods are
imported, Canada in this case, may be different from the country
of origin of the foreign components in the vehicle.
- 5
-
We agree that the facts in HRL 553240 are not directly
analogous to the
circumstances presented in the instant case. However, since
Customs had ruled in HRL 553240 under circumstances in which a
vehicle of both foreign and U.S. parts were assembled in a zone
and transferred to the customs territory, the general statement
was made to cover the obvious situation not specifically
presented in the facts in that case, i.e., where a vehicle was
exported directly to the foreign country (and not transferred to
the customs territory) and returned. This statement did not
represent a new Customs position, but was made in the context of
HRL 553240 since it more fully represented Customs interpretation
of the sixth proviso to section 3 of the FTZA.
Accordingly, while this statement covered a situation not
directly related to the
factual situation in HRL 553240, we find that it clearly
represented Customs
position with regard to the dutiable status of an imported
article assembled in a FTZ from U.S. and foreign parts, and
exported directly from the zone to a foreign country without
transfer to the customs territory.
1) Established and Uniform Practice
Protestant contends that Customs has failed to comply with
the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1315(d) which concerns the
effective date of administrative rulings resulting in higher
rates.
Section 1315(d)provides as follows:
No administrative ruling resulting in the
imposition of a higher rate of duty or
charge
than the Secretary of Treasury shall find
to
have been applicable to imported
merchandise
under an established and uniform practice
shall
be effective with respect to articles
entered
for consumption or withdrawn from
warehouse for
consumption prior to the expiration of thirty
days after the date of publication in the
Federal
Register of notice of such ruling; but
this
provision shall not apply with respect to
the
imposition of anti-dumping duties or the
- 6 -
imposition of countervailing duties under
section
1303 of this title.... (Emphasis added.)
Protestant contends that an established and uniform
practice, as defined in the case of Hereaus-Amersil v. United
States, 617 F. Supp. 89, 9 CIT 412 (1985), aff'd, 795 F. 2d 1575,
existed in this case as the result of uniform liquidations over a
long period of time.
In Hereaus-Amersil, the court stated that the factors to be
considered in determining an established and uniform practice
are:
...the number of entries resulting in the
alleged
uniform classifications, the number of ports at
which the merchandise was entered, the period
of
time over which the alleged uniform
classifications
took place, and whether there had been any
uncertainty regarding the classification over
its
history. In essence, the question is whether a
uniform and established practice existed that
would
lead an importer, in the absence of notice that
change in classification will occur, reasonably
to
expect adherence to the established
classification
practice when making an importation.
In that case, over 300 liquidations at two ports had
occurred over a 10-year period. The court held that the
importer was entitled to rely upon the continued classification
absent a published notice of a contemplated change in
classification practice pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1315(d).
Similarly, Protestant states that for 10 years, vehicles
produced in U.S. FTZs were imported duty-free under subheading
9801.00.10, HTSUS. In support of this claim, Protestant submits
in evidence lists of entries for vehicles imported through
various ports. These entries include the VIN numbers of the
vehicles. For example, Protestant states that this evidence
reflects that during the period January 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994,
it imported 1,157 vehicles produced in FTZs which were entered at
six different ports as U.S. goods returned. [Evidence of FTZ
production is established by the VIN number, which shows the U.S.
facility where the vehicle was produced,
- 7 -
the model year, (which may not be the year of production), and
other information
which reflects the sequence of production. Further inquiry of
the manufacturer or other reliable information is required to
establish that the U.S. facility was operating as a FTZ at the
time of production.]
Protestant also points out that while FTZ production began
in 1985, it is difficult to quantify the exact number of vehicles
produced in a FTZ since the entries made under subheading
9801.00.10 do not distinguish between vehicles made in a FTZ and
those which were not produced in a zone. Further, Protestant
notes that a time gap exists in importations between 1989-1992,
because there was no economic incentive to import cars from
Canada during this period. [We assume that in making this point
Protestant is distinguishing between entries made under
subheading 9801.00.10 that reflect the VIN number and those
entries that are incomplete or otherwise do not reflect the VIN
number.]
Protestant also states that if the vehicles had not been
classified under
subheading 9801.00.10, then they would have been classified under
heading 8703
or 8704 of the HTSUS and the vehicles would have been subject to
a 2.5% duty or a 25% duty. Protestant argues that this change
in tariff classification constitutes a change in established and
uniform practice as defined by the court in Hereaus-Amersil.
Protestant's contention presupposes that Customs officers
allowing entry under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, during the
protest period, were aware of both the fact that the vehicles
were assembled in a FTZ and that they had not entered the customs
territory (with payment of duty) upon release from the zone prior
to exportation. In this regard, Protestant states that the VIN
number located on the frame of the vehicle reflected not only the
country of origin (primarily U.S.), but also the exact plant in
the U.S. which produced that vehicle. Protestant also submits in
evidence entries in which the VIN number was also located on the
CF 7501 and on the invoices, although, as noted, this did not
occur in every case. Protestant notes that Customs officers
would periodically examine the VIN number to determine the
country of origin. Based on this information which was available
to the Customs officers, Protestant contends that it was Customs
responsibility to determine the amount of duty to be deposited at
entry and to properly classify the merchandise. Protestant
argues that Customs did classify the vehicles uniformly for many
years, finding the merchandise to qualify for treatment as U.S.
goods returned.
- 8
-
We do not concur with Protestant's contention that Customs
knew (or should have known) that the vehicles entered under
subheading 9801.00.10 were produced in a FTZ and had not entered
the U.S. from the FTZ prior to exportation to Canada. It is true
that the VIN number located on the vehicles (and perhaps on the
entry summary and/or the invoice), reflected the country of
origin and place of manufacture in the U.S. However, the actual
name of the place of manufacture is not reflected by the VIN
number; rather, the eleventh digit of the VIN represents the
final assembly location of the vehicle. (The tenth digit
represents the model year.) To determine the actual location
requires further inquiry of the manufacturer, unless such
information was maintained by the involved Customs office. No
such showing is made. Furthermore, a plant might have been a FTZ
in a particular year but not a FTZ in the following year, or such
a change might have occurred within the same month. This
information could only be verified through communication with the
manufacturer, after review of the VIN number. Under these
circumstances, we find that Protestant has not established that
Customs knew, or had reason to know, that any of the entered
vehicles covered by the protest were produced in a FTZ. In fact,
Protestant has not established that those vehicles which may have
been produced in the FTZ were exported directly therefrom without
first being entered into the U.S.
Furthermore, as we stated in HRL 558983, we believe that a
uniform and established practice cannot exist for entries which
are claimed to be duty-free under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS.
In Peugeot Motors Of America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT
167 (1984), the Court of International Trade held that the law
governing an established and uniform practice was not intended to
cover appraisement of merchandise. The court pointed to the
opening statutory phrase under 19 U.S.C. 1315(d) ("No
administrative ruling resulting in the imposition of a higher
rate of duty or charge ..."), and stated that it related to the
imposition of a rate of duty which is imposed under the
classification provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1500 and not the
appraisement provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1500 and 1402. The court
further stated the following:
Uniformity in classification...was
intended to be
covered by section 1315(d). Appraisement
is
conceptually different from
classification. In
appraisement every transaction stands
independently.
The same merchandise from the same
manufacturer
- 9
-
sold to a different purchase may result in
an
entirely different appraisement, as well
as the basis
of appraisement, depending upon the terms,
conditions,
and restrictions, etc. of the sale.
Consequently, a uniform
practice of appraisement is not
possible....
Id at 171.
We believe that the principles gleaned from the court's
reasoning are also applicable to the eligibility requirements
under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS. Thus, in order for an entry
to be free of duty under this provision, certain documentation
requirements must be met, or the port director must be satisfied
that all of the requirements for eligibility under this provision
have been met so that the documentation requirements may be
waived. Therefore, the fact that one Ford Taurus may enter into
the U.S. at a free rate of duty under subheading 9801.00.10,
HTSUS, does not necessarily mean that a similar Ford Taurus is
eligible to enter into the U.S. duty-free under subheading
9801.00.10, HTSUS. While the courts have found that a section
1315(d) "established and uniform practice" can be predicated on
uniform classifications and liquidations at various ports over a
period of time (Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., supra), the facts at issue
in this case, however, do not merely involve the question of
whether or not a certain tariff classification applies, but
rather whether the subject vehicles have satisfied all of the
requirements for duty-free eligibility under a Chapter 98, HTSUS,
provision. Entries under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, are fact
specific, and like appraisement issues, "every transaction stands
independently." Peugeot Motors, supra at 171. Hence, mere
liquidations covering the same type of merchandise at a free rate
of duty are not enough to establish a uniform and established
practice with regard to eligibility for duty-free treatment under
subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS.
2) Detrimental Reliance
Protestant further maintains that Customs' publication of
C.S.D. 95-3 has the effect of applying retroactively a new
Customs Service position to substantially identical transactions
entered into in reliance on a previous Customs Service position.
It is further claimed that this modification is in violation of
19 C.F.R. 177.9(e)(1), which concerns ruling letters which have
the effect of modifying past Customs
- 10 -
treatment of transactions not covered by ruling letters.
According to 19 C.F.R. 177.9(e)(1):
The Customs Service will from time to time issue a
ruling letter
covering a transaction or issue not previously the
subject of a
ruling letter and which has the effect of modifying
the treatment
previously accorded by the Customs Service to
substantially
identical transactions of either the recipient of the
ruling letter or
other parties. (Emphasis added.)
In such circumstances, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 177.9(e)(1),
the Customs Service may delay the effective date of the ruling
letter, and continue the treatment previously accorded the
substantially identical transaction, for a period of up to 90
days from the date the ruling letter is issued. However, in
situations where a party has relied, not on a previously issued
ruling letter, but on past Customs treatment, Customs requires
that the affected party submit an application requesting a delay
in the effective date of a ruling letter. In these situations,
19 C.F.R. 177.9(e)(2) sets forth specific requirements for such
applications. According to this provision, the applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Customs Service that the
treatment previously accorded relates to substantially identical
transactions and was sufficiently consistent and continuous that
the party reasonably relied on the
past treatment in the arrangement of future transactions.
Specifically, section 177.9(e)(2) requires that the
applicant must submit evidence of past treatment by the Customs
Service covering the 2-year period immediately prior to the date
of the ruling letter, listing all substantially identical
transactions by entry number. In addition, the applicant must
provide the quantity and value of merchandise covered by each
such transaction, the ports of entry, and the dates of final
action by the Customs Service. Section 177.9(e)(2) further notes
that, "The evidence of reliance shall include contracts, purchase
orders, or other materials tending to establish that the future
transactions were arranged based on the treatment previously
accorded by the Customs Service." Finally, in order to grant a
delay pursuant to 177.9(e)(1), the Regulations require that
Customs examine all relevant factors regarding the issue of
reliance. Section 177.9(e)(3) requires that Customs carefully
review the past transactions on which reliance is claimed to
determine whether there was an examination of merchandise by
Customs. Furthermore, in making the determination to delay, the
weight accorded to the documented history of consistent and
continuous Customs treatment, will be
- 11
-
diminished in the following instances: transactions involving
small quantities or values, informal entries, and situations
where Customs, in the interest of commercial facilitation and
accommodation, processes expeditiously and without examination
and/or import specialist review. See 19 C.F.R. 177.9(e)(3).
Protestant submits that a new Customs Service position
(C.S.D. 95-3) was applied by the Customs Service to transactions
substantially identical to the transactions involving
FTZ-produced vehicles during the period covered by the protest.
Protestant further claims that Customs' past treatment of these
"substantially identical transactions" was sufficiently
consistent and continuous during the protest period so that the
importers reasonably relied thereon in arranging future
transactions and thus, Protestant has satisfied its claim for
detrimental reliance. Protestant claims that prior to the
subject entries, every vehicle produced in a FTZ, except to the
extent that the vehicle was subject to drawback, was entered
duty-free as American Goods Returned under subheading 9801.00.10,
HTSUS, and that it has submitted relevant evidence, in
satisfaction of the requirements of 19 CFR 177.9(e)(3) in this
case, that the prior entries had the relative domestic content
and the same sources (Foreign Trade Zones) as the protested
entries. Further, as there is no indication that the district
director waived production of the documentary requirements, (See
HRL 558893), Protestant contends that it reasonably believed that
Customs knew the circumstances of manufacture of the subject
vehicles and that its treatment of the entries reflected that
knowledge.
We find that Protestant has failed to demonstrate that the
entries which were
previously liquidated free of duty are substantially identical
transactions to the entries involved in this protest. As we
stated in HRL 559983, mere evidence of liquidation of a vehicle
at a free rate under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, is not
sufficient to establish that the transaction was substantially
identical to the subject entries. In order to be eligible for
duty-free treatment under this provision, each entry must satisfy
the documentation requirements or the port director must be
satisfied that all of the requirements for eligibility are
satisfied so that the documentary evidence may be waived. In the
instant case, there is also no indication that the district
director (now port director) waived production of the documentary
requirements. Therefore, even if Protestant could produce
evidence that vehicles manufactured in a FTZ were exported
directly from the zone to Canada and subsequently imported into
the U.S. free of duty under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, this
would not mean that future entries of vehicles would have been
entitled to enter into the U.S. free of duty. As
- 12
-
previously indicated, the requirements (including documentation)
for eligibility under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS, must be
satisfied for each article at the time of its importation, and
cannot be based upon prior importations of similar articles.
In summary, Protestant has not established whether the prior
entries which were accorded duty-free treatment involved
substantially identical circumstances (exportation from a FTZ
without transfer to the customs territory) as the entries which
are the subject of this protest, or that Customs knew the
circumstances of the manufacture of the vehicles. Further,
Protestant has failed to submit evidence of the claimed treatment
by Customs covering the 2-year period immediately prior to the
date of the ruling letter, as required by 19 CFR 177.9(e)(2).
Under the circumstances, we find that Protestant has not
established a basis for claiming detrimental reliance pursuant to
19 CFR 177.9(e).
3) General Note 3(d), HTSUS
As determined above, automobiles produced in FTZs that are
exported directly to Canada or Mexico and not formally entered
for consumption in the U.S., generally are subject to duty on the
full value (i.e., both foreign and domestic content) of the
automobile when they re-enter the U.S. General Note 3(d), HTSUS,
which was added by section 19 of the Miscellaneous Trade and
Technical Corrections Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-295, 110 Stat.
3514 (October 11, 1996), however, provides, in part, as follows
with respect to the calculation of duties on the foregoing
vehicles when appropriate information is presented:
[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the
duty imposed
on a qualified article shall be the amount
determined by
multiplying the applicable foreign value content of
such article
by the applicable rate of duty for such article.
General Note 3(d)(ii), HTSUS, defines a "qualified
article" as an
article that is:
(A) classifiable under any of subheadings 8702.10
through 8704.90
of the [HTSUS],
(B) produced or manufactured in a foreign trade zone
before
- 13
-
January 1, 1996,
(C) exported therefrom to a NAFTA country (as
defined in section 2(4)
of the NAFTA Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3301(4)),
and
(D) subsequently imported from that NAFTA country
into the customs territory of the United
States--
(I) on or after the effective date of this
subdivision, or
(II) on or after January 1, 1994, and before
such effective date, if
the entry of such article is unliquidated,
under protest, or in
litigation, or liquidation is otherwise not
final on such effective date.
In this case, the articles are Ford Taurus station wagons
classified under heading 8703, HTSUS. The entry documentation
indicates that the vehicles were entered into the U.S. from
Canada on March 29, 1994. Protestant also submits that the
vehicles were produced in a U.S. FTZ. Therefore, provided
protestant presents (within a specified period of time)
sufficient information to establish the "applicable foreign value
content" as well as "the FTZ percentage" required under General
Note 3(d), duty will be payable only on the foreign content
contained in each vehicle. See Fact Sheet 7346071 dated December
11, 1996. To the extent that the vehicles qualify for the
reduced duties under General Note 3(d), this protest should be
granted in part.
HOLDING:
1) Based on the information provided, the subject vehicles
made from U.S. and foreign components which are produced in a
FTZ, exported directly from the FTZ into Canada and then imported
into the U.S. are not entitled to duty-free treatment under
subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS. Furthermore, we do not find that
Protestant has demonstrated that either an established and
uniform practice was created pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1315(d), or a
claim for detrimental reliance is warranted within the meaning of
19 C.F.R. 177.9(e). However, if sufficient information is
presented to establish that the vehicles qualify for reduced
duties under General Note 3(d), as added by Pub. L. 104-295, 110
Stat. 3514 (October 11, 1996), duty is payable only on the
applicable foreign content contained in the vehicle, and this
protest should be granted in part accordance with the foregoing.
- 14
-
In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision 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 of 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,
John
Durant, Director
Tariff
Classification Appeals Division