CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:VS H019713 KSG
Field Director
Office of Regulatory Audit
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
301 E. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
RE: Eligibility of certain entries for duty-free treatment under the GSP; wholly obtained and produced; 35% value-content requirement;
Dear Director:
This is in response to your request for Internal Advice, dated November 6, 2007, concerning a Focused Assessment conducted by your office reviewing certain entries imported by Big Lots Stores, Inc., (“Big Lots”) for which preferential tariff treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”) was claimed. Specifically, this case involves 100 entries made in calendar year 2002. Based on a statistical sample of 100 entry lines for goods imported in 2002, your office initially concluded that 83 of the 100 claims were not sufficiently supported by documentation to show that the goods were eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP. After further review, your office has concluded that none of the 100 entries are sufficiently supported. Counsel for Big Lots disagreed with the findings in the Follow-Up Report dated June 29, 2006. Big Lots did agree that three (3) of the disputed entries were not eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP. You have asked our office to review 13 entries that represent the highest loss of revenue projections as being representative of the entries involved in this case. Counsel for Big Lots provided to this office a copy of the documentation submitted to the Port. We also reviewed a spreadsheet prepared by the port that identified the products involved.
FACTS:
As discussed above, this case involves a review of 13 entries that are representative of 100 entries that Big Lots imported into the U.S. in 2002 as eligible for GSP treatment.
Big Lots claimed that 11 of the entries were wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the country of origin. Big Lots claimed that two (2) of the entries were substantially transformed in the beneficiary developing country (“BDC”) and the foreign materials used underwent a double substantial transformation.
Item #1
The first item considered is stainless steel dog bowls with rubber grips. The sample included six entries made in 2002. The country of origin claimed was India. Counsel states that GSP declarations and Form A’s were submitted for three (3) of the six (6) entries.
There is an affidavit submitted from Magpie Exports, the manufacturer of the dog bowls. The affidavit is undated and has an illegible signature. Underneath the signature, it says “Auth. Sig.” The affidavit states “This is to certify that the below articles are made of stainless steel and rubber gasket and originated from India.” The affidavit then lists three item numbers, SKU numbers and descriptions of the three items—three steel pet bowls of different sizes.
Attached to the affidavit is a document titled “Production Process,” which is a sketch of 8 boxes. For instance, in the first box, it says “S.S. Scrips.” In the second box it says “S.S. Circles (Blanking).”
There are also three invoices attached to the affidavit from Deepikaj Industries showing the purchase of “S.S. sheet strip.” There is a also a certification from Deepikaj Industries stating that they manufacture stainless steel strips and that they sold stainless steel strips to Magpie Exports that were manufactured in India.
There is no information in the file with regard to the rubber skids. There was no cost data submitted in support of this claim.
Item #2
The second item is a 7-piece enamel cookware set classified in subheading 7323.94.0026, HTSUS. Big Lots entered this product as a product of Indonesia. There were four entries for the calendar year 2002 for this imported good.
The foreign materials used to produce the cookware were: 1) cold rolled steel from S. Korea; 2) enamel fritz from Taiwan; and 3) stainless steel strip from Japan.
Big Lots submitted a narrative and photographs describing the production of the cookware by PT Pelita Enamel in Indonesia. Steel is oiled and cut into the form of a round plate by using a punching machine. The size of the round plate is adjusted based on the size of the pot to be made. The round plate is then put into the center of a pressing machine to form the pot shape. The unfinished pot is then trimmed and the pot’s rim is created using pressing and cutting. The bracket is then used to attach the handle or knob. The pot is then cleaned by dipping it into several kinds of rust removal chemicals to remove all rust and oil. Enamel coating is then applied on the pot by dipping the pot into a liquid. The pot is then dried on a moving conveyor into a wire rack, and then into an oven. The pot is then enameled again to create a top coating, and goes through a drying process. A stainless steel rim is assembled onto the pot. The handle and knob are attached to the pot with a screwdriver to form the finished pot.
Big Lots did not include any cost information for the foreign materials used to manufacture the imported cookware.
Item #3
This item is a wirebound notebook claimed as a product of Brazil. Five entries made by Big Lots in 2002 were included in this review. Big Lots submitted various documentation to support its assertion that the paper used to produce the notebook was of Brazilian origin: an affidavit from Bignardi Industria E Commercia De Papeis E Artefacots Ltda; a Certificate of Approval; an unsigned declaration on International Paper letterhead; and an e-mail from Juliana Cruvinel of International Paper. There was no documentation submitted with regard to the origin of the wire used to bind the notebooks. No cost information was submitted.
Item #4
This item is wire hangers which Big Lots claimed to be wholly produced in Thailand. There were four entries from 2002 that were included in this review. The appraised value of the wire hangers is $.35. There is a GSP declaration that states that the value of the wire is $.20, the value of the labor is $.05, the value of the direct costs of processing are $.08 and the label is $.02. If totaled up, the costs of production for this item is equal to the appraised value. There is a Certificate of Origin from Master Resource Co. Ltd. (unsigned) stating “raw material PP random and PP homo” are “of Thailand origin” and were purchased from Somboon Plastic factory. There is a letter submitted from Somboon Plastic factory stating that it sold “raw material” to Master Resource Co. Ltd. from February 10, 200 (sic) until November 27, 2004. There is a second Certificate of Origin from Master Resource Co. Ltd. stating that “the raw material metal random are of Thailand origin” that was bought from Dacha Rohakji. There is a letter stating that raw material was sold to Master Resource Co. Ltd from February 10, 2001, until March 31, 2006. The name of the company and address are not translated into English.
Item #5
This item is dome tents claimed as a product of Bangladesh classified in subheading 6306.22.10, HTSUS. The importer stated that the synthetic fabrics used to produce this good are from S. Korea and China. Poles and rods are also imported into Bangladesh. Counsel argues that these materials undergo a double substantial transformation. There was no cost data submitted regarding either the value of the foreign fabric used or any of the other materials that were used to produce the finished dome tents.
Item #6
Item #6 is a mango wood box. Three entries made in 2002 were reviewed. The importer stated that the boxes were made of wood purchased from M.H. Timber from wood grown and harvested in India. Three invoices from M.H. Timber dated in 2002 and addressed to Marya Crafts shows the purchase of mango wood. An undated and unsigned letter from Marya Crafts states that “the mango wood used in the product is of Indian origin and is not imported from any country.” No cost data was submitted to support this item.
Items #7 and #8
Item #7 is a 5 piece midget open end wrench set. It is described in the information submitted as “cv steel-chrome plated.” Item #8 is a wrench set 5pc slim. It is described in the information submitted as made of “chrome Vanadium steel, chrome plated.” Both items were manufactured by Akar Tools Ltd. in India. Steel was purchased from R.L. Steels Ltd. Big Lots provided a copy of Akar’s catalogue, a certification from Akar as to the origin of the steel and an affidavit and two invoices from R.L. Steels Ltd. The certification from Akar is dated December 2005 and it is unclear who signed it. The certification states that the raw materials steel, stainless steel and cast iron used in the manufacture of their products is wholly manufactured in India. The certification from R.L. Steels is dated 2006 and it is difficult to discern who signed it. Underneath the signature, it states “authorized signature.” It states that they supplied steel bars to Akar during 2002 and 2003 that were totally of Indian origin. The invoices prepared by R.L. Steels, dated in 2002, indicate the sale to Akar of bars and rods. There was no information submitted with regard to other raw materials used to manufacture the tools such as stainless steel and cast iron and possibly other raw materials including a dip for the chrome plating.
Akar also submitted a brief description of the manufacturing operation for various tools. For items #7 and 8, the brief description states the following: “blanking, forging, trimming, drilling/punching both ends, broaching, belt grinding, shot blasting, polishing, heat treatment, straightening (and calibration for item #8), vibra polishing and nickel chrome plating.”
There were two invoices submitted for the purchase of steel from R.L. Steels but no information showing how much steel is used to produce the finished products.
Item #9
Item #9 are plastic folding storage crates claimed as “wholly produced” in Thailand. The plastic crates were manufactured by Tre-Atthaboon Industry Co. Ltd. Big Lots stated that the crates are made of plastic from materials manufactured by HMC Polymers Co. Ltd. and sold by Polymers Marketing Co. and Polyplast.
There is an undated affidavit by Mr. Somchai Puttanoon of Polyplast Intertrade Co. Ltd stating that they “sold raw material” to Tre-Atthaboon Industry Co. Ltd. from June 1995 until today. There is also an affidavit from Polymers Marketing Company Limited dated February 6, 2006, prepared by Chainarong L. that states that polypropylene grade HP-550R, HP-400H and HP-644T and RP-440N were sold by them to Polyplast Inter Trade Co. Ltd. which were purchased from HMC Polymers Co. Ltd.
There is a certificate of origin prepared by Chookiat K., of HMC Polymers dated February 6, 2006, stating that polypropylene HP-550R, HP-400H, HP-644T and RP-440N “is the product of Thailand and the country of origin is Thailand.” There was no cost data submitted in support of this item.
Items #10, 11, 12
These items are tools manufactured by Akar Tools Ltd. in India (like items # 7 and #8). One folder submitted by Big Lots refers to all the entries of tools manufactured by Akar Tools Ltd. As described above, the documentation submitted as to the country of origin of the materials used to produce the tools is for the purchase of steel. There is no documentation showing the purchase of any additional materials used to produce the tools in India. Item #10 is described as a set of pliers made of “carbon steel with a pvc handle.” Item #11 is described as a “puller made of silver, and alloy steel chrome.” Item #12 is described as a “axe camp” with a tubular handle and sheath described as made of carbon steel, tubular steel shaft and a rubber handle.”
Akar submitted a brief description of the processing involved for the various tools. For item #10, the pliers, the following processing is performed: “blanking, heating, forging, trimming, grinding, barreling, center drilling, sheet milling, die broaching, leg broaching, jaw broaching, assembly, drilling for reamer, milling for cutter, counter for rivet, riveting, straightening, side cutting, side broaching, rough filing, duplexing, heat treatment, filing for cutter, final grinding, loosening, phosphating, polishing, cleaning and lacquering.”
For item #11, the puller, the following processing is performed: “forging, trimming, grinding, milling, broaching, heat treatment and chrome plating.” For item #12, the axe camp, the following processing is performed: “forging, trimming, grinding, and heat treatment.”
There was no cost data submitted to support these items.
Item #13
This item is a wooden chest with 5 drawers claimed as “wholly produced” in India. Big Lots submitted an affidavit prepared by Vivek Sharma of Sajja Craft International, the foreign manufacturer. The affidavit, dated January 10, 2006, states that the item is “all handmade of wood, metal and mirror” and that all the materials used to make the wooden chest are produced in India. There is also an affidavit and a 2002 invoice from Sarthak Timber Co. that states that the wood used to make the wooden chest was harvested in India. There is no supporting documentation submitted for the metal, mirror and any other raw materials used to produce this product. There was no cost data submitted to support this claim.
ISSUE:
Whether the imported goods described above are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the GSP.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C.A. 2461-65), authorizes the President to establish a Generalized System of Preferences to provide duty-free treatment for eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries (“BDCs”). Articles produced in a BDC may qualify for duty-free treatment under the GSP if the good are imported directly into the customs territory of the U.S. from the BDC and the sum or value of materials produced in the BDC plus the direct costs of the processing operations performed in the BDC is equivalent to at least 35 percent of the appraised value of the article at the time of entry into the U.S. See 19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(2) and (3).
General Note 3(c)(i), HTSUS, provides, in part, that special tariff treatment under the GSP is indicated in the “Special” subcolumn in the tariff by the symbols “A”, “A*,” or “A+”.
All the countries where the processing occurred are designated as a beneficiary developing country for GSP purposes under General Note 4(a), HTSUS.
The “product of” requirement means that to receive duty-free treatment, an article either must be made of materials “wholly the growth, product or manufacture of” the BDC, or if made of materials imported into the BDC, those materials must be substantially transformed in the BDC into a new and different article of commerce. See 19 CFR 10.176(a). A substantial transformation occurs “when an article emerges from a manufacturing process with a name, character, or use which differs from those of the original material subjected to the process.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (1982).
In this case, all of the items but two are claimed to be wholly the growth, product or manufacture of the BDC (“wholly the growth”).
To be eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP statute, merchandise must also satisfy the 35% value-content requirement. 19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(2)(A) states that “the duty-free treatment provided under this sub-chapter shall apply to any eligible article which is the growth, product, or manufacture of a beneficiary developing country if— (i) that article is imported directly from a beneficiary developing country into the customs territory of the United States; and (ii) the sum of (I) the cost or value of the materials produced in the beneficiary developing country …plus (II) the direct costs of processing operations performed in such beneficiary developing country or such member countries, is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of such article at the time it is entered.”
We will assume for the purposes of this ruling that all the entries satisfy the “imported directly” requirement in this case.
If an article consists of materials that are imported into a BDC, the cost or value of these materials may be counted toward the 35% value-content requirement only if they undergo a double substantial transformation in the BDC. See 19 CFR 10.177(a)(2). Materials imported into the BDC must first be substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce which becomes “material produced” and these materials produced in the BDC must then be substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce (the final article). This intermediate product must be a distinct article of commerce. An article of commerce is commercially recognizable as an article which is readily susceptible of trade and one that persons might well wish to buy and acquire for their own purposes of consumption or production. See Azteca Mill Co. v. U.S., 703 F. Supp. 949 (CIT 1988), and F.F. Zuniga a/c Refractarios Monterrey, S.A. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1203 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 10.173(c), “any evidence of country of origin submitted under this section shall be subject to such verification as the port director deems necessary. In the event that the port director is prevented from obtaining the necessary verification, the port may treat the entry as dutiable.”
Pursuant to 19 CFR 10.176(c), merchandise which is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a BDC,…and “manufactured products consisting of materials produced only in such country or countries, shall normally be presumed to meet the requirements set forth in this section.”
Pursuant to 19 CFR 10.177(b), when the origin of an article either is not ascertainable or not satisfactorily demonstrated to the port director, the article shall not be considered to have been produced in the BDC.
The issue presented in this case is whether the thirteen entries involved have satisfied the “product of” requirement of GSP and the 35% value-content requirement. This is a factual determination which must be made on an entry- by-entry basis.
We find that in this case, based upon the particular facts involved, the submission by the importer of the documentation described above for the thirteen entries satisfies the “product of” requirement but not the value-content requirement for the GSP.
Item #1
Big Lots has not submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the dog bowls are “wholly the growth, product or manufacture” of India as it claimed. While information was submitted with regard to the origin of the stainless steel, there was insufficient information submitted as to the country of origin of the rubber. While the affidavit mentions the rubber, it is not clear that the rubber was manufactured in India and there were no supporting invoices presented for the rubber. It would appear that steel used to produce a dog bowl would satisfy the substantial transformation standard and that therefore, Big Lots has shown that the dog bowls are a “product of” India.
However, Big Lots did not supply cost information to determine if the 35% value-content requirement was met. Based on the documentation submitted, Big Lots has not shown that the dog bowls would be eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP.
Item #2
This item, the 7-piece cookware set, is classified in a GSP-eligible provision. Big Lots claimed that the foreign materials underwent a substantial transformation in the BDC and satisfied the 35% value-content requirement to support its GSP claim. Based on the information presented in the narrative, the foreign materials used to manufacture the cookware set underwent a substantial transformation in Indonesia to satisfy the “product of” requirement.
Counsel argues that the assembly and finishing operations performed on the cookware constitute a second substantial transformation. The assembly involves the attachment of a handle and a knob with a screwdriver. The finishing process described essentially involved the trimming of the pots that are already in their final form. This is a simple operation that would not constitute a substantial transformation. Therefore, we find that the foreign materials do not undergo a double substantial transformation and could not be counted toward the 35% value-content requirement.
Furthermore, Big Lots submitted no cost data to support the value-content requirement. Therefore, Big Lots has not shown that this item is eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP.
Item #3
Big Lots has not submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the wirebound notebooks are “wholly the growth, product or manufacture” of Brazil as it claimed. While information was submitted with regard to the origin of the paper, there was no information submitted as to the country of origin of the wire used to bind the notebooks. Accordingly, Big Lots has not shown that the notebooks are “wholly produced” in Brazil. However, producing notebooks out of paper and wire would constitute a substantial transformation. Accordingly, the “product of” requirement is met in this case.
No cost data was submitted in this case. Therefore, Big Lots has failed to demonstrate that the 35% value-content requirement is met. Big Lots has not shown that the notebooks are eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP.
Item #4
We note that the Certificates of Origin submitted to support the assertion that the wire hangers are “wholly produced” in Thailand were not specific and to the extent that they stated that “raw materials” were produced in Thailand, not probative on this issue. It appears in this case that plastic and metal were utilized to produce hangers. Producing a hanger from plastic and metal would constitute a substantial transformation. Therefore, the wire hangers are a “product of” Thailand for the purposes of the GSP.
We share the concern of your office that all the claimed costs are equal to the appraised value. It does not reflect any amount for profit and general expenses for this good. Your office was reasonable in challenging the cost figures submitted. Based on the information submitted, we support your finding that Big Lots has not sufficiently shown that it meets the 35% value-content requirement in this case.
Item #5
Item 5 is dome tents made of polyester materials and includes a pole. The tents were classified in subheading 6306.22.10, HTSUS. This provision was a GSP-eligible provision in the 2002 HTSUS.
Counsel contends that pursuant to 19 CFR 102.21(c)(5), the country of origin of the tents would be Bangladesh, the last country in which an important assembly or manufacturing process occurred.
Based on HRL 959179, dated May 9, 1996, in which imported dome tents made of foreign material were classified in the country where they were assembled, we concur with counsel on this point.
Counsel then argues that the foreign materials imported into Bangladesh undergo a double substantial transformation and therefore, may be counted toward the 35% value-content requirement.
Counsel has not submitted an explanation of the processing involved in producing the tent in Bangladesh. Therefore, we are unable to determine if the foreign materials may be counted toward the 35% value-content requirement.
Further, Big Lots has not submitted cost data to support the 35% value-content requirement. Therefore, Big Lots has not submitted sufficient documentation to show that the imported good were eligible for GSP.
Item #6
In this case, the importer has submitted supporting invoices and an affidavit to demonstrate that the mango wood boxes are wholly produced in India. Your office gave less weight to the affidavit, that was undated and unsigned. Pursuant to 19 CFR 10.173(c), we find that your office acted in a reasonable manner in giving less weight to the affidavit and requiring further information to demonstrate the origin of the wood.
Further, documentation relating only to the mango wood is sufficient to show that the boxes are “wholly produced” in India only if the mango wood is the only material used to produce the boxes. We are unable to determine if these boxes have metal hinges or if any other raw materials such as varnish were used to produce the finished mango wood boxes in this case. Therefore, we are unable to conclude based on the information presented whether the mango wood boxes are “wholly produced” in the BDC. However, producing a box from mango wood would constitute a substantial transformation and therefore, the mango wood boxes would be considered a “product of” the BDC.
Counsel cites HRL 562359, dated September 27, 2002, as stating for the principle that if Big Lots shows that the main raw material used to produce the material is from the BDC, that the value-content requirement is waived and it is unnecessary to submit any cost data. In fact, HRL 562359 dealt with a scenario where an importer submitted information as to the origin of an imported good claiming GSP treatment and the Customs Laboratory initially disagreed with the importer’s assertions as to origin. The imported good was rate advanced based on the CBP Laboratory conclusion. Upon further review, CBP determined that the CBP laboratory conclusions were inconclusive and therefore, the protest was allowed. The language of 19 CFR 10.176(c) gives the Port Director discretion not to require cost data if the Director is satisfied that the good is “wholly produced” in the BDC.
If the Port Director has any doubt as to the origin of the imported good, (mango wood boxes), the Port Director may ask for further supporting information and cost data to determine if the 35% value-content requirement is satisfied. In this case, we find that Big Lots has not shown that the imported mango wood boxes are eligible for GSP.
Items #7 and #8
Big Lots submitted affidavits and 2002 invoices for the steel purchased from R.L. Steels. We note that the affidavits are dated in 2005 and 2006 and it is unclear who signed them. This would go to the weight we would accord to these documents. More importantly, the affidavit from R.L. Steel and their invoices only demonstrate the origin of the steel used to produce the finished tools. It would appear that there were other raw materials used to produce these tools, including cast iron and a dip for chroming. We have no information with regard to the other raw materials that appear to be used to produce the finished good. In order to show that the goods were “wholly produced”, the importer would have to either demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Port that there were no other materials used to produce the finished goods in India or submit sufficient information with regard to the Indian origin of the other raw materials used to produce these goods in India.
Based on the brief description of the processing of the steel, the steel undergoes a substantial transformation into finished tools and therefore, would be considered a “product of” the BDC.
However, we were not provided sufficient data to determine if the 35% value-content requirement is met in this case. Therefore, Big Lots has not shown that these items are eligible for GSP tariff treatment.
Item #9
Big Lots claimed that the imported plastic crates were “wholly produced” in Thailand. The only significant documentation submitted in support of where the materials were produced was the certificate of origin prepared by HMC Polymer, the producer of the materials, which failed to show that it sold any materials to Tre-Atthaboon Industry in 2002 and/or related to the entries in question. The Port Director was reasonable in asking for further documentation as support for a finding that the plastic crates were “wholly produced” in Thailand. Based on the above documentation, we find that Big Lots provided insufficient documentation to demonstrate that the imported plastic crates were “wholly produced” in Thailand. However, we find that plastic used to produce a storage crate would create a new article with a new name, character and use. Since the plastic undergoes a substantial transformation, it would satisfy the “product of” requirement under the GSP.
There was no cost data submitted to determine if the value-content requirement is met in this case. Therefore, Big Lots has not shown that this item is eligible for GSP treatment.
Items #10, 11, 12
It is clear from the description of three items that the tools are not solely produced from steel. One tool has a pvc handle, another has a rubber handle. Big Lots has not submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the goods are “wholly produced” in India. However, if the processing described for each of the tools by Akar is performed in India, the steel and other raw materials are substantially transformed into tools in India and would satisfy the “product of” requirement of BDC.
Big Lots has not submitted sufficient documentation to determine if the value-content requirement is met for these items. Therefore, Big Lots has not shown that items 10, 11, and 12 are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the GSP.
Item #13
This item is an imported wooden chest with 5 drawers. Big Lots claimed that this item was “wholly produced” in India but the documentation submitted only supported the claim that the wood used to make this item was from India. Since Big Lots has not demonstrated that all the materials used to make this product were of Indian origin, Big Lots has not shown that the wooden chests are “wholly produced” in India. Nonetheless, the raw materials used to produce a wooden chest would undergo a substantial transformation and therefore, would be considered a “product of” India for the purposes of the GSP.
However, Big Lots has not submitted cost data to demonstrate that the value-content requirement is met in this case. The wooden chests are not eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP.
Based on the above, we find that your office properly concluded that none of the 13 items involved in this case are eligible for duty-free treatment pursuant to the GSP.
For eleven items, there was insufficient information to support Big Lot’s claims that the imported items were “wholly produced” in the BDC and therefore a product of the BDC. For two of the items (cookware sets and dome tents), Big Lots claimed that the foreign materials were substantially transformed in the BDC and satisfied the value-content requirement. All of the items appear to qualify as a “product of” the BDC because they underwent a substantial transformation in the BDC. However, Big Lots did not submit sufficient cost data to demonstrate that the 35% value-content requirement was met with regard to any of the items. Based on the above, we find that Big Lots has not submitted sufficient supporting documentation to show that any of the 13 items reviewed were eligible for duty-free treatment pursuant to the GSP.
HOLDING:
We find that the importer has not demonstrated that any of the entries reviewed were eligible for GSP. The importer submitted insufficient documentation to demonstrate that the 35% value-content requirement was met.
This decision should be mailed by your office to the party requesting Internal Advice no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. On that date, the Office of Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CPB personnel, and to the public on the CPB Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation & Special Programs Branch