OT:RR:CTF:VS H302184 RMC
Field Director
Regulatory Audit and Agency Advisory Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1100 Raymond Boulevard
Newark, NJ 07102
Re: Internal Advice Request; Transaction Value; Service Fees; Royalties and License Fees
Dear Field Director:
This is in response to your correspondence dated August 2, 2018, requesting internal advice on the dutiability of certain service fees that the importer, [ ] (“the Importer”), pays to the related seller, [ ] (“the Parent”), and royalties that the Importer pays to [ ] (“the Related Licensor”).
The Importer has asked that certain information submitted in connection with this internal advice request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this decision.
FACTS:
The Importer is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, a foreign entity that develops, produces, and sells flavors and fragrances. According to the information provided, the Importer manufactures thousands of products from raw materials such as vanilla, citrus products, or plant and flower materials. Its customers include companies in the perfume, cosmetics, and food industries, as well as manufacturers of household products.
The imported merchandise primarily consists of raw materials such as fruit, vegetable, or other plant extracts and concentrates; essential oils; special aroma molecules; and aroma chemicals that the Importer purchased from the Parent. The merchandise was appraised based on the transaction value in the sale between the Parent and the Importer. As explained in further detail below, the Importer subsequently used the imported merchandise (along with other imported materials and domestically sourced ingredients) to manufacture products for resale in the United States.
This internal advice request arose during an audit by U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) Regulatory Audit and Agency Advisory Services (“RAAS”). During its review of the Importer’s transactions, RAAS discovered that the Importer made additional payments to the Parent for service fees and to the Related Licensor for royalty fees, and that neither of these payments was included in the declared value of the imported merchandise. RAAS questioned whether these additional payments should be included in the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise or added as an addition to the price actually paid or payable.
In response to RAAS’s request for information, the Importer noted that there is no sales contract, sales agreement, or distribution agreement between itself and the Parent, and that the sales are based solely on purchase orders. However, the Importer provided complete copies of the applicable license agreement and service agreement. The facts relating to the service fee payments royalty payments, as well as excerpts from the relevant agreements, are set forth below.
Service Fees Pursuant to Cost Sharing Agreement
According to the information provided, the Importer makes additional payments pursuant to a service agreement with the Parent dated August 14, 2008. Relevant sections of the service agreement are as follows:
Services.
During the term of this Agreement the Parent shall provide to the Importer, or otherwise make available to the Importer Services to assist the Importer in the proper and efficient conduct and control of its business and in its leading function. In Particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing statements) the Parent shall provide, subject to the availability of its personnel, Services as listed and more precisely described in Appendix A.
Service Fee.
In consideration of the Services provided or made available by the Parent to the Importer under this Agreement, the Importer shall pay the Parent a fee for its Services (hereinafter called “the Service Fee”), which shall be levied by reference to the total cost borne by the Parent from executing its duties hereunder (hereinafter called “the Service Costs”) plus a mark-up of 10% . . .
Term
In December 2007, the Parties agreed verbally that this Agreement becomes effective on January 1, 2008, and shall remain in force for an indefinite period of time.
Appendix A – Scope of General Administration and Support Services
The Parent shall support the Importer in its leading role providing comprehensive and superordinated services relating to the following:
Business Development and Marketing
The provision of business development and marketing support services on behalf of the Importer to facilitate and promote the growth of sales in the Region through:
Marketing techniques and strategies;
Public relations;
Pricing and product development;
Bids and contract negotiations;
Customer relations; and
Other marketing related matters.
Finance and Legal
The provision of finance and legal support services on behalf of the Importer to facilitate the co-ordination of accurate and up-to-date financial reporting data, tax and legal liaison and currency management through:
Accounting and financial reporting support;
Budgeting and controlling support;
Financing and hedging support;
External audit support;
Internal audit support;
Tax and legal support.
Human Resource
The provision of human source services on behalf of the Importer to facilitate the recruitment and management of key personnel in the Region, including:
Sourcing of key personnel for the operations in the Region;
Other HR compliance issues relating to personnel in the Region.
Product Management
The provision of product management services on behalf of the Importer to facilitate cost effective purchasing and cost savings for the Importer through:
Pricing and product development;
Negotiations with key suppliers for the operations in the Region;
Bids and contract negotiations;
Other product management related matters.
Royalties
The Importer states that it uses a number of licensed manufacturing processes to produce finished products in the United States. The licensed processes include liquid compounding, spray dry technology, and reaction flavors. In addition, the Importer uses licensed technology in its production facilities to carry out distillation and other chemical extraction processes. As described in further detail below, the license agreement covers, among other technologies, the “information in respect to the manufacturing techniques and applications engineering of the molecules” that the Importer needs to manufacture the finished products in the United States. In exchange for these rights, the Importer pays the Related Licensor a royalty payment of 3% of the Importer’s net U.S. sales price of products manufactured in the United States using the know-how provided for in the license agreement.
The license agreement dated March 28, 2014, contains the following relevant terms:
THIS AGREEMENT is dated 3/28/2014 and is entered into BETWEEN [ ] (“the Related IP Holding Company”] acting on behalf of the partnership in the process of the Related Licensor . . in the following the “LICENSOR” and the Importer . . . in the following of LICENSEE.
1.3 – “CONTRACT PRODUCTS” means the products to be developed, produced, sold and advertised by the LICENSEE listed in the applicable (latest) version of Schedule III – which is subject to changes according to Section 15.
1.5 – “KNOW-HOW” shall mean all know-how as specified in the applicable (latest) version of Schedule I which is subject to changes according to Section 15. All KNOW-HOW licensed herein derives its economic benefit and value by being not generally known or reasonably ascertainable.
2.1 – LICENSOR hereby grants LICENSEE a non-exclusive, non-perpetual, revocable, chargeable, non-transferable, non-sublicensable right to use the KNOW-HOW for the development, production sale and advertising of the CONTRACT PRODUCTS in the TERRITORY in accordance with the AGREEMENT.
9.1 – LICENSEE shall pay to LICENSOR royalty, which is three (3) percent of the LICENSEES’ NET SALES PRICE OF CONTRACT PRODUCTS, sold to THIRD PARTIES and [ ] (“the Corporate Group”). Royalties shall be payable only on the sale of CONTRACT PRODUCTS.
9.3 – Royalties due to LICENSOR shall be due and payable on a quarterly basis, payable not later than thirty (30) days after quarter-end. . . .
9.6 – The PARTIES acknowledge that the royalty payments required under this Section are not required until LICENSEE has sold the relevant CONTRACT PRODUCTS recognizing the sale in its accounts applying IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards).
SCHEDULE 1 – KNOW-HOW – The KNOW-HOW related to the development, production and use of molecules comprising all technical and scientific information and experiences resulting from the basic research activities of the Parent. The KNOW-HOW includes all secret information in respect to the manufacturing techniques and applications engineering of the molecules. . . .
SCHEDULE II – TERRITORY – The term TERRITORY covers the territory of the following country: USA.
SCHEDULE III – CONTRACT PRODUCTS – The term CONTRACT PRODUCTS covers any and all products currently developed, produced, sold, and distributed by the Corporate Group under the use of the KNOW-HOW. All products are listed in the current SAP system of the Importer for all the Corporate Group which have access to SAP. . .
Based on its review of the information that the Importer provided, RAAS concluded that both the service fee payments and the royalty payments were dutiable. The Importer maintains that both payments are unrelated to the imported merchandise and thus non-dutiable.
ISSUES:
Whether the service fee payments that the Importer makes to the Parent are included in the transaction value of the imported merchandise as part of the price actually paid or payable, or whether they constitute additions to the price actually paid or payable under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).
Whether the royalty payments that the Importer makes to the Related Licensor constitute additions to the price actually paid or payable under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Merchandise imported into the United States is appraised for customs purposes in accordance with Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA; 19 U.S.C. § 1401a). The primary method of appraisement is transaction value, which is defined as “the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States,” plus amounts for certain statutorily enumerated additions to the extent not otherwise included in the price actually paid or payable. See 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1). When transaction value cannot be applied, the appraised value is determined based on the other valuation methods in the order specified in 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(a).
Transaction value is an acceptable basis of appraisement only if, inter alia, the buyer and seller are not related, or if related, the relationship did not influence the price actually paid or payable, or the transaction value of the merchandise closely approximates certain “test values.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(2)(B). Here, although the buyer and the seller are related, the request for internal advice focused solely on the dutiability of royalty payments and service payments. Accordingly, we assume for the purposes of this decision that transaction value is the appropriate method of appraisement.
Service Fees
Part of the Price Actually Paid or Payable
The term “price actually paid or payable” is defined as “the total payment (whether direct or indirect…) made, or to be made, for imported merchandise by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the seller.” 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(4)(A). Here, the Importer makes the service fee payments directly to the Parent, which is the seller of the imported merchandise. In determining whether the service fee payments at issue here are part of the price actually paid or payable, the question is therefore whether the payments are part of the “total payment . . . for imported merchandise.”
Regarding the scope of the term “total payment,” in Luigi Bormioli Corp., Inc. v. United States, 304 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that:
We have interpreted the term “total payment” in the “price actually paid or payable” definition to be “all-inclusive.” Generra Sportswear Co. v. United States, 905 F.2d 377, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, we have held that the “price actually paid or payable” includes payments made by the buyer to the seller in exchange for merchandise even if the payment “represents something other than the per se value of the goods.” Id. at 379-80 (holding that quota payments were properly included in the “price actually paid or payable”). This interpretation is consistent with the broad definition of “price actually paid or payable” adopted by the GATT.
Although the total payment is “all inclusive,” it does not encompass payments that are totally unrelated to the imported merchandise. In Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 17 C.I.T. 1049 (1993), the importer challenged Customs’ decision to add “shortfall” and “special application fees” to the value of imported automobile engines. The contract between the importer and the seller specified that the fees were payable if the importer failed to meet purchasing requirements. The Court found that the obligation to pay both fees arose from the plaintiff’s failure to purchase engines and noted that “[a]n expense arising from the failure to purchase certain merchandise is not a component of the price paid for the acquisition of other products.” As a result, the expenses were not part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported engines.
However, as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted in Generra, 905 F.2d 377:
Congress did not intend for the Customs Service to engage in extensive fact-finding to determine whether separate charges, all resulting in payments to the seller in connection with the purchase of imported merchandise, are for the merchandise or for something else. As we said in Moss Mfg. Co. v. United States, 896 F.2d 535 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the “straightforward approach [of section 1401a(b)] is no doubt intended to enhance the efficiency of Customs’ appraisal procedure; it would be frustrated were we to parse the statutory language in the manner, and require Customs to engage in the formidable fact-finding task, envisioned by [appellant].
Thus, if the importer seeks to exclude payments to the seller from the “total payment . . . for [the] imported goods,” it carries the burden of establishing that the payments are totally unrelated to the imported merchandise. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) W563404, dated March 3, 2006.
Whether a payment is “for imported merchandise” (and thus included in the price actually paid or payable) or totally unrelated to the imported merchandise (and thus excluded from the price actually paid or payable) depends on the nexus between the payment and the imported goods. See VWP of Am. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 1056, 1062 (2001) (“Whether a particular [payment] provokes liability for customs duties depends upon its relevance to importation.”). In particular, CBP examines the nature of the additional payments, whether the amount of the payments varies according to the value or quantity of merchandise, the timing and frequency of the payments, and whether the payments add value to the imported goods. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) H242894, dated December 4, 2013.
CBP has generally held that service fees that are entirely separate from the amounts paid for the imported merchandise are not part of the price actually paid or payable. For example, in HQ 545998, dated November 13, 1996, CBP held that a “co-promotion” fee that the importer paid to a related licensor was not part of the “total payment . . . for imported merchandise.” In that case, the importer purchased an active pharmaceutical ingredient from an unrelated company in Belgium. Upon importation, the importer combined the product with other ingredients of U.S. origin to produce Zyrtec. Among the five agreements that the buyer entered into was a “co-promotion” agreement which permitted the related licensor to assist the importer in marketing Zyrtec in the United States by making sales presentations to licensed prescribers of medications. In exchange for its marketing and promotion efforts in the U.S., the licensor earned a “co-promotion” fee in accordance with a formula in the contract.
CBP agreed with the importer’s argument that the co-promotion fees were not payments associated with the sale for exportation of the imported merchandise. The evidence indicated that the co-promotion fees resulted from specific undertakings of the licensor in promoting the sale of the product in the United States and that the amount the licensor received under the agreement directly related to those specific undertakings. As a result, the price actually paid or payable was “entirely separate from any amounts that the importer/buyer pays to the licensor as a result of the latter’s participation in marketing events.” Thus, even though the payments were made to a party related to the seller, they were not part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise.
Similarly, in H239496, dated March 13, 2015, CBP held that an “administrative fee” that the importer paid to the related seller was not part of the price actually paid or payable for imported jewelry. The administrative fee, which was calculated as percentage of net sales, was designed to compensate the seller for marketing, sales support, administration, information technology, finance, legal, human resources, and logistics arrangements. CBP agreed with the importer that the administrative fee was not part of the price actually paid or payable because the fee was not connected to the imported merchandise, but was paid for specific undertakings of the seller in the United States. See also HQ 543512, dated April 9, 1985 (holding that fees paid by the buyer to the related seller for accounting, financing, planning, management, marketing, and clerical services “were not tied to the sale of exportation of any specific merchandise” and thus were not “for” the imported merchandise).
Here, the services agreement provides that the Parent will provide business development and marketing, finance and legal, human resources, and product management services to the Importer at cost plus a 10% markup. Accordingly, the amount that the importer pays for the services does not appear to be tied to the sale for exportation of the merchandise. The services agreement provided does not mention products to be purchased and imported or create any obligation for the Importer to purchase products from the Parent. Accordingly, the service fee is designed to compensate the Parent for providing specific undertakings on behalf of the Importer. As a result, although the “price actually paid or payable” includes all payment to or for the benefit of the seller, whether direct or indirect, the service fees were not paid “for imported merchandise,” 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(4)(A), and are not part of the price actually paid or payable.
Statutory Addition as Proceeds under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(E)
Although we have determined that the service fees are not dutiable as part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise, we must also determine whether they must be added to the price actually paid or payable as “the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the imported merchandise that accrue, directly or indirectly, to the seller.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(E). CBP regulations clarify that “[d]ividends or other payments from the buyer to the seller which do not relate directly to the imported merchandise will not be added to the price actually paid or payable. Whether any addition would be made will depend on the facts of the particular case.” See 19 C.F.R. § 152.103(g).
Here, the Importer paid the service fees to the seller. However, the fees do not result from the subsequent resale, disposal or use of the merchandise. Instead, they result from specific services that the Parent provides to the Importer (at cost +10%) that do not relate to any specific importation of merchandise. Accordingly, the service fees are not dutiable under the proceeds provision in 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(E).
Royalties
Statutory Addition as a Royalty or License Fee under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(D)
19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1) provides that:
The transaction value of imported merchandise is the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, plus amounts equal to . . .
(D) any royalty or license fee related to the imported merchandise that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States . . .
With respect to the dutiability of royalty payments, the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) to the TAA, H.R. Doc. No. 153, 96 Cong., 1st Sess. (1979), reprinted in Department of the Treasury, Customs Valuation under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (1981), at 48-49, states, in pertinent part:
Additions for royalties and license fees will be limited to those that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States. In this regard, … royalties and license fees paid to third parties for use, in the United States, of copyrights and trademarks related to the imported merchandise, will generally be considered as selling expenses of the buyer and therefore will not be dutiable. However, the dutiable status of royalties and license fees paid by the buyer must be determined on a case-by-case basis and will ultimately depend on: (i) whether the buyer was required to pay them as a condition of sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States; and, (ii) to whom and under what circumstances they were paid. For example, if the buyer pays a third party for the right to use, in the United States, a trademark or copyright relating to the imported merchandise, and such payment was not a condition of the sale of the merchandise for exportation to the United States, such payment will not be added to the price actually paid or payable. However, if such payment was made by the buyer as a condition of the sale of the merchandise for exportation to the United States, an addition will be made. As a further example, an addition will be made for any royalty or license fee paid by the buyer to the seller, unless the buyer can establish that such payment is distinct from the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise, and was not a condition of the sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States.
In General Notice, Dutiability of Royalty Payments, Vol. 27, No. 6 Cust. B. & Dec. at 1 (Feb. 10, 1993), CBP articulated the following three factors or questions that assist in determining whether the royalty payments in question are related to the imported merchandise and are a condition of sale such that they are dutiable:
Was the imported merchandise manufactured under patent?
Was the royalty involved in the production or sale of the imported merchandise? And
Could the importer buy the product without paying the fee?
Affirmative answers to questions one and two, and a negative answer to question three suggest that the payments are dutiable. Otherwise, the payments are non-dutiable.
When analyzing the factors identified in the above-cited General Notice, CBP has taken into account certain considerations, which flow from the language set forth in the SAA, such as:
the type of intellectual property rights at issue (e.g., patents covering processes to manufacture the imported merchandise will generally be dutiable);
to whom the royalty was paid (e.g., payments to the seller or a party related to the seller are more likely to be dutiable than are payments to an unrelated third party);
whether the purchase of the imported merchandise and the payment of the royalties are inextricably intertwined (e.g., provisions in the same agreement for the purchase of the imported merchandise and the payment of the royalties; license agreements which refer to or provide for the sale of the imported merchandise, or require the buyer's purchase of the merchandise from the seller/licensor; termination of either the purchase or license agreement upon termination of the other, or termination of the purchase agreement due to the failure to pay the royalties); and
payment of the royalties on each and every importation.
See, e.g., HQ 547148, dated Sept. 12, 2002.
Here, turning to the first question under the General Notice analysis, it is unclear whether the imported merchandise is manufactured under patent. In its submission dated June 21, 2018, the Importer states that “the imported material . . . is not typically manufactured under patent” and that, in any event, any imported finished goods manufactured under patent are specifically excluded from the license fee calculation. The Importer did not provide further information in response to our questions about what types of imported materials could be manufactured under patent. However, based on its statement that imported materials are not “typically” manufactured under patent, the Importer does appear to acknowledge that, at least in some cases, the imported materials are in fact manufactured under patent. We will therefore assume that the answer to the first question in the General Notice is “yes.”
As for the second question, based on our review of the information submitted, there is no linkage between the payment of the royalties and the production and sale for exportation of the imported merchandise. Under the terms of the license fee, the royalty does not become payable by virtue of the production of the imported merchandise or the sale for export to the United States. Instead, the royalty is payable only if the Importer uses licensed technology in its manufacturing operations in the United States. The raw materials used in these manufacturing operations may consist of the imported merchandise purchased from the Parent, imported merchandise purchased from other sellers, or domestically sourced materials. Accordingly, the answer to the second question in the General Notice is “no.”
The third question posed by the General Notice, namely, whether the importer could buy the merchandise without paying the fee, is central to the question of whether a royalty payment is a condition of sale. Here, the obligation to pay the license fee arises when the licensed technology is used to manufacture goods in the United States. It appears that the Importer could import the merchandise without paying the fee if, for example, it resold the merchandise in the United States without further processing or processed the merchandise using technology not covered by the license agreement. See, e.g., HQ W548649 and HQ H285848, dated October 27, 2017. Thus, unless there are other undisclosed agreements that link the payment of the royalties to the purchase of the imported goods, we find that the payment of the royalties is not a condition of the sale for exportation to the United States of the imported merchandise.
Regarding four considerations that “flow from” the language set forth in the SAA, only the second (i.e., to whom the license fee is paid) supports a finding that the royalties should be added to the price actually paid or payable under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1). Here, the license fees are paid to a party related to the seller, which means that they are “more likely to be dutiable than are payments to an unrelated third party.” On the other hand, the first factor (the type of intellectual property at issue) weighs against dutiability, as it concerns know-how necessary for manufacturing operations in the United States, rather than patents covering a process to manufacture the imported merchandise itself. Similarly, none of the examples listed in the third factor (whether the purchase of the imported merchandise and the payment of the royalties are inextricably intertwined) apply in this case; there is no purchase contract, mutual termination clause in any agreement, or any requirement for the Importer to purchase merchandise from the seller. Finally, regarding the fourth factor, the royalties at issue here do not appear to be paid on each and every importation. Instead, the license agreement provides that payments are made each quarter on the basis of net sales of final products manufactured in the United States using the licensed processes. Accordingly, a license fee would not be paid on an importation where the merchandise was resold in its condition as imported or further manufactured in the United States using non-licensed processes.
As a result of our analysis of the three factors set forth in the General Notice and the four factors that flow from the SAA, and even though some of the imported merchandise may have been manufactured under patent, we conclude that the royalties do not relate to the imported merchandise and are not required to be paid as a condition of the sale for export to the United States. Accordingly, they should not be added to the price actually paid or payable as an addition under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(D).
Statutory Addition as Proceeds under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(E)
As noted above, “the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the imported merchandise that accrue, directly or indirectly, to the seller” must be added to the price actually paid or payable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1)(E). However, CBP has generally held that payments based on the resale in the United States of a finished product made in part from the imported merchandise are not dutiable as proceeds under § 1401a(b)(E). For example, in HQ 545419, dated November 30, 1995, the importer paid a royalty for the right to manufacture and sell licensed photomultiplier tubes in the United States. The importer purchased parts and components from the seller/licensor and used them to produce the licensed products in the United States. The royalty payable to the seller/licensor was based on the net resale price of the photomultiplier tubes. CBP held that because the payments were based partially on the imported parts and components and partially on other factors (i.e., the other components and U.S. processing necessary to produce the photomultiplier tubes), the payments did not constitute proceeds of the imported parts and components under § 1401a(b)(E). See also HQ 544656, dated June 19, 1991; and HQ 545770, dated June 21, 1995.
Here, as in HQ 545419, the royalty payments at issue are not based on the resale of the imported merchandise. Instead, they are based on merchandise that is manufactured in the United States which may or may not contain the imported merchandise. Additionally, in accordance with sections 1.5 and 9.6 of the license agreement, any imported merchandise that is resold in its condition as imported does not generate a royalty payment. Accordingly, the payments at issue are not dutiable under the proceeds provision.
HOLDING:
The service payments that the Importer makes to the Parent are not included in the transaction value of the imported merchandise as part of the price actually paid or payable, or as additions to the price actually paid or payable under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).
The royalty payments that the Importer makes to the Related Licensor are not included in the transaction value of the imported merchandise as additions to the price actually paid or payable under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1).
Sixty days from the date of this decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, will make this decision available for CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page at http://www.cbp.gov by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of publication.
Sincerely,
Monika Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch