OT:RR:CTF:VS H327987 AMW
Field Director
Office of Trade
Trade Regulatory Audit
San Francisco Field Office
555 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
c/o Ziara Rever, Senior Auditor
RE: Internal Advice; Related Party Transaction; Exercise Equipment; Computed Value; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(e)
Dear Field Director:
This is in response to your memorandum submitted October 19, 2022, in which you request internal advice concerning the proper method of appraisement for various models of imported exercise and fitness products.
The importer has requested confidential treatment for the information contained in its submission, which includes certain identifying information, as well as for prices, costs, and profit figures contained in their submissions. Inasmuch as the request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), the company's request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to the request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling
FACTS:
[ ] ("the importer") is a U.S. importer and distributor of fitness equipment and miscellaneous components. The importer/company was formed by the founder
[ ]. The importer is legally owned by [ ] (the "trust"), which was established with funds from the founder's former wife, [ ]. The beneficiaries of the trust are the founder and their children. The trust is controlled by the Trustee,
[ ]; however, the founder is the Chairman of the importer's Board of Managers, which is functionally equivalent to a board of directors. The importer is required to purchase all goods from a Chinese entity, [ ] (the "manufacturer"), except for consumables or readily available items, such as nuts, bolts, washers, and chains. The manufacturer is owned by the founder but is run separately and has separate financial and profit and loss statements. The manufacturer is the importer's primary supplier, comprising over 90 percent of its total imports.
The importer purchases merchandise from the manufacturer through a related trading intermediary, [ ] (the "intermediary"). The intermediary is a separate company registered in the British Virgin Islands and located in Hong Kong; it is also owned by the founder, who serves as Chairman of the Importer's Board of Managers and owns the manufacturer. In purchasing the subject merchandise, the importer places purchase orders with the intermediary, which then transfers them to the manufacturer. The intermediary then processes and transfers payments by the importer to the manufacturer as a trading intermediary. During the audit, the importer described to CBP that the intermediary serves as a pass-through entity that does not take title of the merchandise. (Other sources in the record indicate that the intermediary possibly takes "flash title" of the merchandise during the transactions.) The importer previously used a different intermediary, [ ], in the same manner. Neither intermediary was involved in any price negotiation. All technical discussions instead occur between the importer and manufacturer. Nevertheless, all three parties share common ownership that meets the definition of "related parties" pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1401(g)(l).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's ("CBP") Trade Regulatory Audit ("Regulatory Audit") has conducted two audits related to the importer. First, CBP audited [ ], a former subsidiary of the importer. The audit report, issued on June 2, 2014, identified several areas of concern, including the former subsidiary's [ ] use of transaction value as a method of appraisal for related party transactions. CBP informed the importer of the initiation of a follow-up audit on June 27, 2017. Among other issues, this audit examined the basis of appraisement for entries made by the importer from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017. Prior to the audit period, as noted above, the importer had entered the subject merchandise utilizing the transaction value based upon the intermediary's FOB invoice value.
During the audit period, Regulatory Audit communicated extensively with the importer regarding the appropriate method of appraisal for the imported merchandise. At various times, the importer advocated for the use of transaction value, based either on the transaction between itself and the manufacturer or between itself and the intermediary. On April 10, 2018, the importer, through its former counsel, notified CBP that transaction value could not be used as the method of appraisement "due to inability to demonstrate that the relationship between the buyer and seller [the importer and manufacturer] did not affect the price." Specifically, the importer referenced the factors outlined in 19 CFR 152.103(j)(1)(iv). With respect to the circumstances of the sale, the importer's prior counsel noted that the prices charged by the manufacturer are determined via an "informal" process involving meetings between executives from the importer and manufacturer. As such, the attorney noted, an examination of the circumstances of the sale could not demonstrate that the relationship between the buyer and seller did not affect price. The importer was also unable to provide evidence that the transaction value closely approximated the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise in sales to unrelated buyers because the manufacturer had not made such sales. Finally, after conducting a deductive value study with respect to its past import transactions, the importer determined that the transaction value did not closely approximate the deductive or computed value of identical or similar merchandise. At no point does this document reference the existence or role of the intermediary.
After determining that transaction value would not be an appropriate basis of appraisement, on February 21 and 22, 2018, the importer met with Regulatory Audit to propose the use of a fallback modified deductive value methodology. Specifically, the importer proposed to calculate the value based on the greatest aggregate quantity unit price less deductions for freight, insurance, profit, warehousing, and assembly. In determining like units to calculate the greatest aggregate quantity unit price, the importer proposed to group the imported merchandise into "cardio" and "strength" products, which were further divided by product line, and, if necessary, product models. Sales of like units would further be grouped by quarter (e.g., for the years 2012-2015) and the greatest quantity of products sold at a given price determined. Once the greatest aggregate quantity unit price was determined for a given product, the importer proposed to deduct freight, insurance, profit and general expenses, warehouse costs, and assembly costs. For certain costs, such as those relating to the transportation of the subject merchandise, the importer noted that it was unable to isolate the actual per-unit cost and would instead utilize a pro-rata calculation. For example, to calculate the deduction for transportation costs, the importer explained that the following steps would be taken:
. Locate the appropriate year of the tracking spreadsheet (e.g., 2013, 2014);
. Sort the tracking spreadsheet for inbound shipments into the United States only;
. Sort by quarter;
. Locate a shipment that has the desired SKU, pull the house bill of lading number and search for the relevant shipment documents in the importer's enterprise software;
. Locate the packing list and arrival notice;
. Divide the total dollar amount listed on the arrival notice by the total cubic board meter ("CBM") listed on the packing list;
. Locate the SKU on the packing list, divide the total CBM by the number of units listed on the packing list. This will provide the CBM for an individual unit; and
. Multiply the CBM by the freight ration to obtain a pro-rated freight value on a unit level.
On November 21, 2018, Regulatory Audit informed the importer that modified deductive value would be the appropriate basis of appraisement and requested the importer create and provide an implementation plan to CBP. Despite this determination, however, the importer continued to enter merchandise using the transaction value of the FOB price between the intermediary and the importer.
On October 23, 2019, the importer, through its current counsel, submitted a new letter to CBP withdrawing its proposal to use a fallback modified deductive value as a basis of appraisement and reasserting that transaction value between the importer and intermediary should be used. This submission argues that an "all costs plus profits test" shows that the intermediary realized an operating profit margin in each year under review that was equal to or greater than the importer's operating profit margin in sales of merchandise of the same class or kind. Further, intending to show that prices were settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing patterns of the industry, the importer provided a "benchmark study" comparing the operating profit margins ("OPMs") of the intermediary with a basket of five comparable Asia-based wholesalers of exercise and fitness equipment. In doing so, the importer asserted that the intermediary earned an OPM above the median of the similarly situated companies, which, the importer asserted, demonstrated the importer and the intermediary settled the prices in an arm's length manner. This submission did not, however, discuss the effect of the relationship between the intermediary and the related manufacturer, which was not mentioned in the submission.
On December 11, 2019, Regulatory Audit issued to the importer a "preliminary basis of appraisement findings." In this communication, Regulatory Audit rejected the importer's proposal to use transaction value between itself and the intermediary as the method of appraisement. Regulatory Audit determined that the importer's October 2019 communication did not analyze whether the importer and related intermediary's purchase of merchandise from the related-party manufacturer influenced the price actually paid or payable. Regulatory Audit also found that a valid buyer-seller relationship likely did not exist between the manufacturer and intermediary because the latter was unable to select its own customers and because the intermediary was not part of price negotiations, which instead occurred between the manufacturer and importer. As such, Regulatory Audit determined, "[the importer's] October 23, 2019 argument is fatally flawed in that it is trying to support transaction value between [the importer] and [intermediary] instead of [the importer] and [manufacturer]." Because the importer failed to provide information demonstrating that the sale between the manufacturer and itself was an arm's-length transaction, Regulatory Audit determined that "the previous determination that the price between [the importer] and [manufacturer] was impacted by the relationship still stands." Accordingly, Regulatory Audit advised the importer that fallback modified deductive value should be used as the basis of appraisement. Following this, the importer agreed to work with Regulatory Audit to conclude the audit, with the understanding that the method of appraisement would be resolved after the completion of Regulatory Audit's field work.
On December 31, 2020, the importer's current counsel submitted a letter to CBP proposing computed value as a method of appraisement. A revised proposal, arguing the same, followed on February 16, 2022. (Although the importer had previously claimed that computed value was unavailable because it did not have access to the manufacturer's production records and financial statements, the importer reports that such records are now available.) In its February 2022 letter, the importer proposes utilizing a computed value methodology for both "historical transactions" occurring from 2010 until the present as well as for future import transactions. For the historical transactions, the importer proposes to use the manufacturer's audited financial statements for a given year to identify the total materials and fabrication costs, general expenses, profit, and operating revenue to calculate a "total computed value" of merchandise produced by the manufacturer for the importer in a given year; the importer would then apply the total computed value to its import shipments for each entry line on a pro rata basis to calculate an estimated computed value for each entry. For future entries, because the actual direct and indirect manufacturing costs and profit will not be known at the time of entry, the importer proposes to use a similar estimate scheme including the following elements: the estimated cost or value of materials, fabrication, and other processing; estimated profit and general expenses derived from the factory accounts; any assist, if its value is not already included; and any packing costs if not included. The total unit cost will then be extended over the quantity in the shipment to achieve the total computed value.
Finally, Regulatory Audit seeks advice regarding the method of valuation for entries related to "internal stock transfers" where the importer transfers its own merchandise from its foreign distribution centers to those in the United States. Such transfers are performed to move merchandise that is unneeded or unsold by the importer abroad to its U.S. centers, often to fulfill customer orders or to correct inventory imbalances. The importer confirmed that because such transfers occur within the company, "no traditional payment information exists." Instead, the importer reported the valuation of such entries based on a pro forma invoice reflecting the intra-company transfer prices. The importer specified that the pro forma invoice value was calculated using "Standard Cost accounting" using the following values: "Material Costs (costs of acquisition); Freight; Duty (if applicable); Warehouse Costs; Royalties (if applicable); and Assembly Cost (if applicable)." In its December 2019 submission, the importer proposes that such shipments be subsumed in its proposal to use computed value.
ISSUE:
What is the appropriate method of appraisement for the imported fitness equipment purchased by the importer from a related-party manufacturer via the related intermediary or transferred from the importer's foreign distribution centers?
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, then the appraised value is determined based on the other valuation methods in the order specified in 19 U.S.C. 1401a(a).
To use transaction value, there must be a bona fide sale for exportation to the United States. However, special rules apply when the buyer and seller are related parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1401a(g). Specifically, transaction value between a related buyer and seller is acceptable only if the transaction satisfies one of two tests: (1) circumstances of sale, or (2) test values. See 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(2)(B). "Test values" refer to values previously determined pursuant to actual appraisements of imported merchandise. Thus, for example, a deductive value calculation can only serve as a test value if it represents an actual appraisement of merchandise under section 402(d) of the TAA. Headquarters Ruling Letter ("HQ") 543568, dated May 30, 1986. The purpose of these rules is to ensure the relationship between the parties does not affect the price. In this instance, the transaction involves related parties. However, no information is available concerning previously accepted test values. Consequently, the circumstances of the sale approach must be used to determine the acceptability of transaction value.
Under the "circumstances of the sale" test, CBP looks for evidence showing that the parties' relationship did not affect the price paid or payable. All relevant aspects of the transaction are analyzed including the way the buyer and seller organize their commercial relations and the way in which the price was determined. The regulations, as set out in 19 CFR 152.103(l), provide three illustrative examples that demonstrate that a relationship did not influence the price: (i) the price was settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry in question; (ii) the price was settled in a manner consistent with the way the seller settles prices for sales to buyers who are not related to it; or (iii) the price is adequate to ensure recovery of all costs plus a profit that is equivalent to the firm's overall profit realized over a representative period of time in sales of merchandise of the same class or kind.
As outlined in the FACTS above, the importer has offered conflicting accounts as to whether transaction value is appropriate for the subject imports. In its April 2018 submission, filed by its former counsel, the importer noted that price negotiations are conducted via "informal" discussions between the importer and the related-party manufacturer and that no evidence could be provided to demonstrate that the relationship between the two entities did not affect the price paid. Furthermore, the importer advised that it had conducted a deductive value study with respect to its past import transactions, which indicated that the transaction value did not closely approximate the deductive or computed value of identical or similar merchandise. Nevertheless, in its October 2019 submission, the importer re-asserted that transaction value, this time based upon the sale between the intermediary and the importer, would be appropriate, arguing: (1) that an "all costs plus profits test" showed the intermediary typically realized an operating profit margin that was equal to or greater than the importer's operating profit margin in sales of the same class or kind; and (2) that a "benchmark study" showed the intermediary earned an operating profit margin similar to five other Asian wholesalers of exercise equipment. The October 2019 submission, however, did not address why the importer had shifted its focus from the sale from the manufacturer to the importer to the sale by the intermediary to the importer.
In its December 2019 analysis, Regulatory Audit determined that the importer's argument in favor of transaction value was "fatally flawed" because it sought to support transaction value between the importer and the intermediary rather than the importer and the manufacturer. Regulatory Audit noted, in part, that the importer provided no evidence, either in relation to the circumstances of the sale or via test values, to show that the parties' relationship did not affect the price paid or payable. Indeed, we find that the importer provided insufficient evidence demonstrating that the transactions between the importer and intermediary constituted bona fide sales for export to the United States. For instance, the record indicates that the intermediary either did not take title to the merchandise or that a "flash title" transfer occurred. While CBP recognizes that bona fide sales may occur in instances of "flash title," such transactions generally are viewed with greater scrutiny so as to determine whether the middleman truly is an independent buyer/seller of goods or is actually acting as an agent on the part of one of the other parties. See HQ H097616, dated November 21, 2011; see also HQ W563605, dated November 19, 2009. In at least one ruling, we have also determined that "the fact that title and risk of loss transferred simultaneously from the Manufacturer to License Holder to the Middleman to the Importer in...the transaction . . . suggests that there was no bona fide sales between the Manufacturer, License Holder and Middleman." See, e.g., HQ H278748, dated March 17, 2017. As such, we determine the importer has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the transaction value based on the transaction between the importer and the intermediary. As for the transaction between the importer and the manufacturer, the importer has previously conceded that no evidence exists to demonstrate that the relationship between the parties did not affect the price paid.
When imported merchandise cannot be appraised on the basis of transaction value, it is appraised in accordance with the remaining methods of valuation, applied in hierarchical order. See 19 U.S.C. 1401a(a)(1).
The second basis of appraisement is the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise. See 19 U.S.C. 1401a(c). The transaction value of identical or similar merchandise refers to a previously accepted transaction value of identical or similar merchandise that was exported at or about the same time as the merchandise being valued. Here, the importer states that it cannot provide information on transactions that would satisfy the requirements in 19 U.S.C. 1401a(c). Nevertheless, if information on the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise is available, the imported merchandise must be appraised under this method of appraisement.
If transaction value of identical or similar merchandise cannot be determined, then the customs value will be based upon deductive value, unless the importer has elected computed value. Deductive value under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d) and 19 CFR 152.105 is calculated based upon the unit price at which the merchandise concerned is sold in the greatest aggregate quantity, generally in the condition as imported and at the time of importation of the merchandise being appraised, or before the close of the 90th day after the date of importation. Provided the merchandise is not further processed, the unit price at which imported merchandise is sold in the greatest aggregate quantity means the unit price at which it is sold to unrelated persons at the first commercial level after importation. See 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). The price is subject to certain enumerated deductions. Significantly, to appraise merchandise under deductive value, there must be sufficient information regarding the actual profits and expenses on which to base the deduction.
Here, the importer maintains that it does not have access to actual deductions on a product level. For example, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d)(3) provides for the deduction of both international and domestic transportation of merchandise. In relation to international transportation, the statute requires a deduction of "the actual costs and associated costs of transportation and insurance incurred with respect to international shipments of the merchandise concerned from the country of exportation to the United States." 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d)(3)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). In an April 10, 2018, email, however, the importer's prior counsel noted that "certain costs, for example with respect to transportation, could not be calculated on an actual basis per transaction...." Instead, the importer claimed that such costs could be calculated by the use of an averaging methodology. These adjustments would not be compatible with the requirements established in 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d) and 19 CFR 152.105, which require deduction for "the actual costs and associated costs of transportation and insurance incurred with respect to international shipments." (Emphasis added.) As such, deductive value cannot be used to appraise the subject merchandise.
The next appraisement method is computed value. 19 U.S.C. 1401a(e) defines computed value as follows:
1) The computed value of imported merchandise is the sum of--
(A) the cost or value of the materials and the fabrication and other processing of any kind employed in the production of the imported merchandise;
(B) an amount for profit and general expenses equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same class or kind as the imported merchandise that are made by the producers in the country of exportation for export to the United States;
(C) any assist, if its value is not included under subparagraph (A) or (B); and,
(D) the packing costs.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)--
(A) the cost or value of materials under paragraph (1)(A) shall not include the amount of any internal tax imposed by the country of exportation that is directly applicable to the materials or their disposition if the tax is remitted or refunded upon the exportation of the merchandise in the production of which the materials were used; and,
(B) the amount for profit and general expenses under paragraph (1)(B) shall be based upon the producer's profits and expenses, unless the producer's profits and expenses are inconsistent with those usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same class or kind as the imported merchandise that are made by producers in the country of exportation for export to the United States, in which case the amount under paragraph (1)(B) shall be based on the usual profit and general expenses of such producers in such sales, as determined from sufficient information.
In its December 2020 and February 2022 submissions, the importer argues that computed value should be used to appraise the subject merchandise. Specifically, the importer asserts that it previously could not support a computed value basis of appraisement because it did not have access to sufficient documentation and data from the manufacturer. The importer now asserts it has obtained access to sufficient documentation from the manufacturer to support computed value. In support of this assertion, the importer has provided the following documentation: an English-language translation of the manufacturer's audited financial statement for 2016, a document summarizing the manufacturer's profits and losses for 2016, and a 2016 sales summary. Accordingly, the importer proposes to calculate a "total computed value" based upon the manufacturer's estimated raw material, labor, and overhead costs from the previous fiscal year, plus an allocated amount for profit and general expenses that will then be broken on a pro rata basis to create a value for individual entries. For future transactions, the importer proposes to report the final costs via reconciliation based upon the actual production costs once they are known.
We have reviewed the illustrative documentation and determine the importer has not provided sufficient information to sustain a computed value basis of appraisement. Instead of providing specific per-unit pricing, the illustrative documentation presents a general picture of the Chinese's manufacturer's operations, including the manufacturer's operating revenue, profit, and cash flow. At no point does the documentation provide the cost of materials, processing, and profit and general expenses at the unit level. As a result, computed value is not applicable. See, e.g., HQ H320347, dated October 13, 2021 (computed value unavailable where importer unable to provide unit-level costs).
The last appraisement method is fallback under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f). Pursuant to the fallback method of valuation in 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f)(1):
If the value of imported merchandise cannot be determined, or otherwise used for the purposes of this chapter, under subsections (b) through (e), the merchandise shall be appraised for the purposes of this chapter on the basis of a value that is derived from the methods set forth in such subsections, with such methods being reasonably adjusted to the extent necessary to arrive at a value.
Certain limitations exist under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f)(1). For example, merchandise may not be appraised on the basis of the price in the domestic market of the country of export, the selling price in the United States of merchandise produced in the United States, minimum values for appraisement, or arbitrary or fictitious values. Under 19 U.S.C. 1500(a), the appraising officer may "fix the final appraisement of merchandise by ascertaining or estimating the value thereof, under section 1401a of this title, by all reasonable ways and means in his power, any statement of cost or costs of production in any invoice, affidavit, declaration, other document to the contrary notwithstanding...." Pursuant to 19 CFR 152.107(a), "If the value of imported merchandise cannot be determined or otherwise used for the purposes of this subpart, the imported merchandise will be appraised on the basis of a value derived from the methods set forth in 152.103 through 152.106, reasonably adjusted to the extent necessary to arrive at a value. Only information available in the United States will be used."
In applying 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f), CBP has previously permitted importers to relax certain requirements under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d) to calculate a fallback modified deductive value. With respect to fallback modified deductive value, CBP has previously permitted the use of pro-rated deductions in instances where the actual cost of a deduction could not be obtained, though it has warned against using an averaging methodology to calculate the overall per-unit price from which deductions would be made. In HQ H304606, dated June 24, 2021, for instance, CBP has determined that "allowing an average price per unit" as the basis for making deductions was not a reasonable adjustment of the deductive value method or superdeductive value method set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d) because such methodology "departs from the deductive value methodology of the statute by relying upon an average unit price, as opposed to using the statutorily required unit price at which merchandise is sold in the greatest aggregate quantity." See. Nevertheless, in calculating deductions from the overall unit price, CBP has permitted importers to use an averaging methodology to calculate per-unit deductions in situations where the actual deduction cannot be obtained. See, e.g., HQ H291761, dated February 27, 2019 ("Some of these expenses will be prorated so that they are appropriately allocated to their use in the selling of the products after importation.")
In the present matter, the importer previously proposed, and Regulatory Audit previously accepted, the use of a fallback modified deductive value basis of appraisement. As outlined in the FACTS above, in February and April 2018, the importer proposed to calculate the unit price based on the greatest aggregate quantity as required by 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d). From this value, where per-unit transportation cost could not be obtained, the importer proposed to deduct charges on a pro-rated basis that accounted for an individual shipment's "cubic board meter" listed on the packing list divided by the number of units listed on the packing list. In an email dated November 21, 2018, CBP informed the importer that fallback modified deductive value "is the applicable basis of appraisement" based on the information provided.
Because the importer is unable to obtain the actual costs of certain deductions, including transportation costs, we agree that the most appropriate way to appraise the imported fitness equipment would be to use a fallback modified deductive value under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f) where the requirement to deduct the actual costs of transportation under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d) are relaxed in favor of a pro-rated methodology. The value should be based on the price the goods are sold for, the retail price, minus the allowable deductions.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that fallback modified deductive value may be used as the method of appraisal for the imported merchandise purchased by the importer from the related manufacturer via the related intermediary. We note, however, that Regulatory Audit has also inquired whether a separate analysis is necessary for merchandise imported as "internal stock transfers" in which the importer transfers its own merchandise from its foreign distribution centers to those in the United States. As with the analysis above, we determine that transaction value under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1) is not available because no sale for exportation occurs and because there is not sufficient evidence in the record to substantiate transaction value as the method of appraisement. Appraisement based on the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise is unavailable because the importer cannot provide information that would satisfy the requirements for 19 U.S.C. 1401a(c). Next, deductive value under 19 U.S.C. 1401a(d) is unavailable because the importer is unable to identify certain costs on a per-transaction basis and would instead need to use an averaging methodology. As such, as outlined above, we determine that fallback modified deductive value is the appropriate basis of appraisement for goods imported by the importer as internal stock transfers.
HOLDING:
The merchandise produced in [ ] and imported into the United States by the importer is to be appraised under fallback modified deductive value of 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f) as outlined above.
This decision should be mailed by your office to the party requesting Internal Advice no later than sixty days from the date of this letter. On that date, 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