RR:IT:VA 546092 KCC
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
127 North Water Street
Ogdensburg, New York 13669
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 0712-94-102153; Yak 52 aircraft; country of origin; Ashdown;
Belcrest Linens; HRL 951072; HRL 732258; C.S.D.s 80-111, 89-110, 89-129 and 90-15; Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft;
General Note 3(c)(iv); 19 CFR 10.183; not sold for
exportation to the U.S.; J.L. Wood; 402(c); 402(h)(4);
402(f); transaction value of similar merchandise reasonably
adjusted
Dear Port Director:
This is in regard to the Application for Further Review of
Protest No. 0712-94-102153 concerning the country of origin,
applicability of the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft and
appraisement of a Yak 52 aircraft pursuant to 402(c) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (TAA), codified at 19 U.S.C. 1401a(c). Additional
information submitted on May 13, 1996, was taken into
consideration in rendering this decision.
FACTS:
The protestant, Gesoco Industries, states that a single
engine Yak 52 Model aircraft ("Yak 52 aircraft") was purchased
in November 1992 in an arms length transaction from a party in
Lithuania. Protestant contends that the uncontroverted documents
show that the price paid for the Yak 52 aircraft is $12,000 with
a $1,000 disassembly charge. However, no documents, such as a
sales contract or proof of purchase, were submitted. The Yak 52
aircraft was originally entered temporarily under bond into the
U.S. on January 5, 1993. This Temporary Importation under Bond
("TIB") entry indicated that the invoice value of the Yak 52 was
$12,000 and Romania was listed as the country of origin. You
indicate that the aircraft was shipped unassembled into the U.S.
where it was reassembled, refurbished, and exported to Canada for
sale in August 1993. However, the sale was not finalized and the
Yak 52 aircraft was returned to the U.S. on August 23, 1993.
The Yak 52 aircraft was entered for consumption on August
31, 1993. Protestant stated that the country of origin was now
Russia and classified the aircraft under subheading 8802.20.00,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which
provides for "Other aircraft (for example, helicopters,
airplanes); spacecraft (including satellites) and spacecraft
launch vehicles...Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen
weight not exceeding 2,000 kg...." The protestant indicated that
the invoice value of the aircraft was $12,000.
You liquidated the consumption entry on August 12, 1994,
under subheading 8802.30.00, HTSUS, which provides for "Other
aircraft (for example, helicopters, airplanes); spacecraft
(including satellites) and spacecraft launch vehicles...Airplanes
and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but
not exceeding 15,000 kg...." You determined that the country of
origin for the Yak 52 aircraft was Romania and, therefore,
applied the column 2 duty rate of 30%. We note that Romania was
granted nondiscriminatory duty treatment effective November 8,
1993. Thus, Romanian products or merchandise entered into the
U.S. before November 8, 1993, were subject to column 2 duty
rates. See, 58 Fed. Reg. 60226 (Nov. 15, 1993). You appraised
the Yak 52 aircraft pursuant to 402(c) of the TAA under
transaction value of similar merchandise at $40,255 using the
previously accepted transaction values of $40,255, $40,543 and
$40,800 of three Yak 52 aircraft which were exported to the U.S.
at or about the same time as the Yak 52 aircraft at issue, i.e.,
May 27, 1993, June 16, 1993, and July 7, 1993, and whose country
of origin was designated as Romania. Additionally, you
determined that transaction value under 402(b) of the TAA was
inapplicable because there was no evidence of a sale for export
to the U.S.
The protestant contends that the country of origin of the
Yak 52 aircraft is Russia and, therefore, the column 1 rates of
duty are applicable. Moreover, protestant states that the Yak 52
aircraft is eligible for duty free treatment pursuant to the
Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft ("ATCA"). We note that the
claim for treatment under the ATCA was not made when entered for
consumption, but was first made in the protest. Additionally,
the protestant states that the Yak 52 aircraft should be
appraised pursuant to transaction value under 402(b) of the TAA
at $13,000. Protestant contends that this value reflects the
$13,000 ($12,000 for aircraft and $1,000 for disassembly charge)
price paid by protestant to the seller of the Yak 52 aircraft in
November 1992. We note that this value is higher than the
$12,000 value indicated on the January 5, 1993, TIB entry and the
August 31, 1993, "Consumption" entry.
If Customs determines transaction value is still
unacceptable, the protestant states that $40,255 value is
overstated. The protestant contends that the similar merchandise
used to appraise the Yak 52 aircraft is a new aircraft, whereas
the Yak 52 aircraft is a rebuilt and used aircraft with over
1,000 hours of flight time. The protestant has submitted a prior
accepted Customs entry of a Yak 52 aircraft which it claims is
similar to the Yak 52 aircraft at issue. The similar Yak 52
aircraft was exported to the U.S. on August 28, 1994. It was
entered by the protestant who indicated that the invoice value
was $12,000 and listed Russia as the country of origin.
The protestant has supplied documentation to Customs
establishing the fact that the aircraft was originally produced
from all Russian parts that were shipped to Romania where the
aircraft was actually constructed. The completed aircraft was
originally used in Russia as a trainer with an air club outside
of Moscow. Subsequently, the Yak 52 aircraft was used for
aerobatics until it was discovered that the wings would separate
from the aircraft because of structural deficiencies. While in
Russia, the entire aircraft was disassembled and vital components
of the aircraft were replaced in order to render the aircraft
suitable for performing aerobatic acts. In particular, the
protestant notes that the aircraft's spar was replaced with a new
and heavier spar. In addition, a new engine and propeller were
fitted as part of the modification of the aircraft. See, letter
from ABC Ltd., dated February 8, 1994. As modified, the newly
designed aircraft is capable of being used with up to nine
positive and seven negative gravitational forces. According to
the protestant, the aircraft was also equipped with two large
annunciator panels to be used in aerobatic instruction.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the Yak 52 aircraft, after its complete disassembly
and reassembly in Russia, is a product "imported directly or
indirectly" from Romania or a product of Russia.
2. Is the Yak 52 aircraft eligible for duty free treatment
pursuant to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft?
3. Whether the Yak 52 aircraft was properly appraised under the
TAA?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
1. Product of Romania or Russia:
The issue of which country is considered the country of
origin for used imported articles which were not originally
intended to be exported to the U.S. has been considered by both
the Court of International Trade and by Customs. In a case
involving the proper rate of duty to be assessed by Customs with
regard to a used imported printing press originally manufactured
in East Germany, the Court held in Ashdown, U.S.A. v. United
States, 12 C.I.T. 808, 696 F.Supp. 661 (CIT 1988), that the
printing press, which was continually used in West Germany for
nine years and which was not intended at the time of original
sale to be exported to the U.S., became a bona fide part of the
commerce of West Germany and was therefore, not an import from a
Communist country.
The "divestiture test" of origin that Ashdown addresses is
not applicable in this case which involves substantial further
processing in the non-column two country. In Belcrest Linens v.
United States, 6 C.I.T. 204, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff'd, 2
Fed. Cir. 105, 741 F.2d 1368 (1984), the Court determined that
the country of origin of imported pillowcases from Hong Kong
which were finished in Hong Kong from bolts of Chinese cotton
which had been pre-stenciled and marked in China was Hong Kong.
The trial and appellate courts confronted the issue of what
standard should be applied to determine the article's origin when
the Communist article was further processed in the intermediate
country before export to the U.S. Although the trial court
stated that decisions construing the marking statute are not
controlling in this case, it nevertheless found that the
processes performed in Hong Kong qualified as a substantial
transformation as the processing in Hong Kong of the fabric into
pillowcases caused a change in the character, appearance,
identity, and use from the bolt of cloth. Id. In discussing the
appropriate test to be used, the appellate court stated that
[T]his test, that an article is the "growth, produce or
manufacture" of an intermediary country if as a result
of processes performed in that country a new article
emerges with a new name, use or identity, is
essentially the test used by the courts in determining
whether an article is a manufacture of a given country
under other areas of customs law.
Id. 2 Fed. Cir. at 109.
The Belcrest Linens appellate court went on to expressly
decline "to advance a definition of this term [substantial
transformation] for all purposes particularly because the
implementing regulations under various tariff provisions define
the term differently." Id. Nonetheless, the court also noted
the difficulty in detecting "the difference between this test and
that used by the trial court, that there was a change in the
appearance, character, identity and use of the involved
merchandise." Id. At 110.
Accordingly, the Court held that the imported pillowcases
were products of Hong Kong to be assessed at the column one duty
rate. Our interpretation of Belcrest Linens is that if a column
two-origin article undergoes a change in name, character, and use
(a substantial transformation) in a column-one country, then that
article will qualify under the "growth, produce, or manufacture"
and new name, use, or identity standard that was articulated
therein.
In HRL 951072, dated May 22, 1992, Customs determined that a
Russian-built MIG 21U that was disassembled and exported to Egypt
where it was reassembled and then used in the Egyptian Air Force
for sixteen years and then stored for several years was regarded
as a product of Egypt for tariff purposes. Customs cited Ashdown
in support for the conclusion that the connection to the column
two country (Russia) was effectively broken due to the extended
period of time that the aircraft was in use in Egypt so that it
no longer could be regarded as an import from Russia.
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 951072, the operation
consisted of the reassembly of the identical column two-origin
airplane in a column one country. No substantial change in name,
character, or use was made to the airplane. The airplane that
was reassembled in the column one country was exactly the same
airplane that was built and then disassembled in the column two
country. On the other hand, in this case, the Yak 52 aircraft
was disassembled and vital components of the aircraft were
replaced in order to render the aircraft suitable for performing
aerobatic acts. In particular, the aircraft was completely
disassembled in order to replace the aircraft's spar with a new
and heavier spar. A spar is one of the main longitudinal
supports of the wings of an aircraft. In addition, a new engine
and propeller were fitted as part of the modification of the
aircraft. The newly designed aircraft is now capable of being
used with up to nine positive and seven negative gravitational
forces. According to the protestant, the aircraft was also
equipped with two large annunciator panels to be used in
aerobatic instruction.
In HRL 732258, dated March 28, 1990, Customs addressed the
country of origin marking requirements for used articles. In
that case, automotive alternators, taken out of used cars that
were scrapped in the U.S., were exported to Mexico for repair.
The importer was unsure of the countries in which the alternators
were originally made. It was determined that the rebuilt
alternators did not have a new name, character or use; rather,
the alternators were rebuilt so that they could function for
their originally intended use. Therefore, since the rebuilding
of the alternators in Mexico was not a substantial
transformation, pursuant to 19 CFR 134.1(b), Mexico was not the
country of origin of these articles. Rather, the country of
origin of the rebuilt alternators was the country where the
alternators were originally built.
The operations performed on the Yak 52 aircraft are far more
involved than the rebuilding of alternators at issue in HRL
732258 or the reassembly of the airplane in HRL 951072. The
purpose of the disassembly and reassembly of the Yak 52 aircraft
was not to restore the aircraft to be used in the manner for
which it was originally built. Rather, the work described above
transformed the Yak 52 aircraft from a trainer plane into a plane
capable of aerobatic flight. In addition, the reassembly was
very substantial, involving, most notably, a completely new spar,
engine, and propeller.
We, therefore, find that the disassembly and reassembly, as
described above, resulted in a substantial transformation of the
Yak 52 aircraft into a product of Russia. Customs has determined
that assembly operations which are minimal or simple, as opposed
to complex or meaningful, will generally not result in a
substantial transformation. See, C.S.D.s 80-111, 89-110, 89-129,
90-51. The reassembly of the entire aircraft in this case,
incorporating a completely new engine, propeller and spar, and
adding two large annunciator panels to be used in aerobatic
instruction, is a complex assembly. The aircraft that emerged
from this processing is now capable of aerobatic flight and able
to withstand up to nine positive and seven negative gravitational
forces.
Accordingly, we find that the Yak 52 aircraft is a product
of Russia and subject to the applicable column one duty rate.
2. Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft
Civil aircraft classified under subheading 8802.30.00,
HTSUS, which provides for "Other aircraft (for example,
helicopters, airplanes); spacecraft (including satellites) and
spacecraft launch vehicles...Airplanes and other aircraft, of an
unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but not exceeding 15,000
kg...." and subject to the column one duty rate are eligible for
duty free treatment pursuant to the Agreement on Trade in Civil
Aircraft ("ATCA"). General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUS, (now General
Note 6, HTSUS), 19 U.S.C. 1202, which sets out the legislation
(Title VI of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 601 of P.L. 96-39
(1979)), enacting the ATCA provides: that to receive duty free
treatment:
Articles Eligible for Duty-Free Treatment Pursuant to
the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft. Whenever a
product is entered under a provision for which the rate
of duty "Free(C)" appears in the "Special" subcolumn,
the importer shall file a written statement,
accompanied by such supporting documentation as the
Secretary of the Treasury may require, with the
appropriate customs officer stating that the imported
article is a civil aircraft or has been imported for
use in civil aircraft, that it will be so used and that
such article has been approved for such use by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) or by the airworthiness authority in the country
of exportation, if such approval is recognized by the
FAA as an acceptable substitute for FAA certification,
or that an application for approval for such use had
been submitted to, and accepted by, the Administrator
of the FAA. For purposes of the tariff schedule, the
term "civil aircraft" means all aircraft other than
aircraft purchased for use by the Department of Defense
or the United States Coast Guard.
Pursuant to this statutory provision, it is clear that in
order to obtain duty free treatment under the ATCA, the importer
must file a written statement (known as the certification) that
(1) the imported article has been imported for use in civil
aircraft, (2) that it will be so used, and (3) that the article
has been approved for such use by the Administrator of the FAA,
or other acceptable authorities.
10.183, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.183), provides that
civil aircraft certified for use in accordance with the
provisions of General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUS, may be admitted free
of duty upon compliance with the provisions of this section. 19
CFR 10.183(c)(1) states that:
Each entry summary for civil aircraft...shall be filed
with a copy of the written order, contract, or any
additional documentation Customs shall require, to
verify the claim for admission free of duty....
General Note 3(c)(iv), HTSUS, and 19 CFR 10.183(c)(1)
provide for the filing at the time of entry as an absolute
condition of entry. It is Customs position that a claim made for
duty-free treatment pursuant to the ATCA must take place at the
time of entry, not in the protest process after the aircraft has
been entered. In this case, the claim for duty-free treatment
pursuant to the ATCA was made during the protest process. No
documentation was submitted at the time of entry to indicate that
the protestant intended the entry to be duty free under the ATCA.
The entry documents for the Yak 52 aircraft did not contain the
necessary certification statement, nor designate a claim for ATCA
eligibility, i.e., a "C" before the subheading number as
instructed by Customs Directive #099 3550-061 dated September 18,
1992. Thus, the Yak 52 is not eligible for duty-free treatment
pursuant to the ATCA.
3. Appraisement
The preferred method of appraising merchandise imported into
the United States is transaction value pursuant to 402(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (TAA), codified at 19 U.S.C. 1401a. 402 (b)(1) of the TAA
provides, in pertinent part, 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 for certain enumerated additions.
Customs recognized the term "sale," as articulated in the
case of J.L. Wood v. United States, 62 CCPA 25, 33; C.A.D. 1139,
505 F.2d 1400, 1406 (1974), to be defined as: the transfer of
property from one party to another for consideration. In this
case, the Yak 52 aircraft was purchased in Lithuania in November
1992 by the protestant and entered temporarily under bond into
the U.S. on January 5, 1993. It was then exported for sale to
Canada. However, the Canadian sale was not finalized and the Yak
52 aircraft was returned to the U.S. and entered for consumption
on August 31, 1993. Thus, when entered for consumption on August
31, 1993, the Yak 52 aircraft was not sold for exportation to the
U.S. No sale occurred for the protested merchandise because
there was no transfer of property from one party to another for
consideration. Therefore, transaction value is inapplicable.
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 sequential order.
See, 402(a)(1) of the TAA. The alternative bases of
appraisement, in order of precedence, are: the transaction value
of identical or similar merchandise (402(c) of the TAA);
deductive value (402(d) of the TAA); computed value (402(e) of
the TAA); and the "fallback" method (402(f)).
402(c) of the TAA states that the transaction value of
identical or similar merchandise is based on sales at the same
commercial level and in substantially the same quantity, of
merchandise exported to the United States at or about the same
time as the merchandise being appraised. You appraised the Yak
52 aircraft at $40,255 pursuant to 402(c) of the TAA under
transaction value of similar merchandise. 402(h)(4) of the TAA
defines "similar merchandise" as:
(A) merchandise that--
(i) was produced in the same country and by the same
person as the merchandise being appraised,
(ii) is like the merchandise being appraised in
characteristics and component material, and
(iii) is commercially interchangeable with the
merchandise being appraised; or
(B) if merchandise meeting the requirements under
subparagraph (A) cannot be found (or for purposes of
applying subsection (b) (2) (B) (i) of this section,
regardless of whether merchandise meeting such
requirements can be found), merchandise that--
(i) was produced in the same country as, but not
produced by the same person as, the merchandise
being appraised, and
(ii) meets the requirement set forth in subparagraph
(A) (ii) and (iii).
Additionally, you determined that the country of origin for the
Yak 52 aircraft was Romania. Thus, the similar merchandise you
used to appraise the Yak 52 aircraft are three Yak 52 aircraft
exported to the U.S. at or about the same time as the Yak 52
aircraft at issue, i.e., May 27, 1993, June 16, 1993, and July 7,
1993. The appraised values for the three similar Yak 52 aircraft
were $40,255, $40,543 and $40,800 and the country of origin for
these three aircraft was listed as Romania.
For purposes of applying the transaction value of similar
merchandise, it is the country in which the article was produced
which is controlling. In this case, we have determined that the
Yak 52 aircraft is considered a product of Russia, not Romania.
Moreover, it appears that the Yak 52 aircraft used as the similar
merchandise are not like the Yak 52 aircraft at issue in
characteristics and component material. The evidence submitted
indicates that the similar Yak 52 aircraft were purchased from a
manufacturing factory in Romania as part of the 1993 series of
Yak 52 aircraft. Whereas, the Yak 52 aircraft at issue was
produced in 1984, used in Russia and underwent various
modifications as described above. To use the transaction value
of similar merchandise, the imported merchandise must be produced
in the same country as the country of the similar merchandise and
be like the merchandise being appraised in characteristics and
component materials. This is not the situation at hand.
Additionally, for purposes of establishing transaction value
of similar merchandise we can not use protestant's submitted
value of $12,000 based on another entry of a Yak 52 aircraft.
Even though the entry summary listed the country of origin of
that Yak 52 aircraft as Russia, it was exported to the U.S. on
August 28, 1994. Whereas, the Yak 52 aircraft at issue was
exported to the U.S. on August 22, 1993. We do not find that the
proposed similar Yak 52 aircraft was exported to the United
States at or about the time that the Yak 52 aircraft at issue was
exported to the United States. The proposed similar Yak 52
aircraft was exported to the U.S. over a year after the Yak 52
aircraft at issue. Therefore, based on the evidence available
the Yak 52 aircraft cannot be appraised on the basis of the
transaction value of similar merchandise.
As transaction value of identical or similar merchandise is
not available, appraisement under deductive value is appropriate
provided the statutory requirements of 402(d) of the TAA are met
and that the necessary documentation and information is
obtainable. Deductive value requires a value at which the
merchandise is sold in the U.S. In this case, deductive value is
not an available method of appraisement as there is no evidence
to indicate when or at what price the Yak 52 aircraft was sold in
the U.S.
Likewise, computed value cannot be used to appraise the
merchandise. Under computed value the following items are added
together: (1) the cost or value of the materials and the
fabrication employed in the product; (2) the profit and general
expenses equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise
of the same class as the imported merchandise; (3) the value of
any assists and (4) the packing costs. In the present case,
there is no evidence that establishes any of these amounts.
Therefore, the only method left for appraising the
merchandise is 402(f) of the TAA. 402(f) of the TAA provides
that if the value of imported merchandise cannot be determined
under subsections (b) through (e):
...the merchandise shall be appraised for the purposes
of this Act 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.
We note that values which are determined pursuant to 402(f) of
the TAA will be based, to the greatest extent possible, on
previously determined values. See, Statement of Administrative
Action, H.R. Doc. No. 153, Pt II, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979),
reprinted in Department of the Treasury, Customs Valuation under
the Trade agreements Act of 1979 (October 1981), at 63-64.
152.107, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 152.107), sets forth
examples of acceptable appraisements using 402(f) of the TAA.
19 CFR 152.107(a) directs Customs to appraise merchandise based
upon a previously accepted value, reasonably adjusted to the
extent necessary to arrive at a value. For example, in this case
the merchandise could be appraised on the basis of 402(c) using
merchandise produced in a country other than Russia or using a
flexible interpretation of the "at or about the same time of
exportation" provision. See, 19 CFR 152.107(b).
It is our position that the Yak 52 aircraft can be appraised
pursuant to 402(f) of the TAA using the transaction value of
similar merchandise for the Yak 52 aircraft exported to the U.S.
on August 28, 1994, which was imported by protestant. The entry
summary indicated that the country of origin for that Yak 52
aircraft was Romania and its value was stated as $12,000. This
value is a previously accepted transaction value. Pursuant to 19
CFR 152.107(b), under 402(f) of the TAA, the transaction value
of similar merchandise can be adjusted using a flexible
interpretation of "at or about the same time of exportation."
Although the similar Yak 52 aircraft was exported over one year
after the Yak 52 at issue, under 402(f) this time frame can be
adjusted.
We note that pursuant to 19 CFR 152.107(b), an adjustment
can be made for the country of production for the three other Yak
52 aircraft which you determined to be similar merchandise.
However, the evidence submitted with regard to those three
aircraft appears to indicate that they are new Yak 52 aircraft
invoiced from the Romanian factory as part of the 1993 series of
Yak 52 aircraft. Whereas, the Yak 52 aircraft at issue was
produced in 1984, used in Russia and underwent various
modifications as described above. Thus, the previously accepted
values for the three aircraft do not meet the definition of
similar merchandise pursuant to 402(h)(4) of the TAA, as they
are not like the Yak 52 aircraft at issue in characteristics and
component material. Accordingly, they cannot be reasonably
adjusted pursuant to 402(f) of the TAA and 19 CFR 152.107(b).
Even if we were to determine that the $40,255 value of the
other Yak 52 aircraft was an acceptable transaction value of
similar merchandise adjusted for the country of production under
402(f), it would not be the appropriate appraised value under
402(f) of the TAA. 152.108, Customs Regulations (19 CFR
152.108), states that imported merchandise may not be appraised
on the basis of:
(b) A system that provides for the appraisement of imported
merchandise at the higher of two alternative values....
In this type of situation, we would have two acceptable
appraisements pursuant to 402(f) of the TAA, the $12,000
transaction value of similar merchandise adjusted for time of
export and the $40,255 transaction value of similar merchandise
adjusted for country of production. Pursuant to 19 CFR
152.108(b), it would be necessary to choose the lower value
alternative, $12,000.
HOLDING:
The Yak 52 aircraft is a product of Russia and subject to
the applicable column one duty rate. The consumption entry
documents for the Yak 52 aircraft do not claim eligibility under
the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, and, therefore, it is
not eligible for duty-free treatment pursuant to the Agreement on
Trade in Civil Aircraft.
Transaction value under 402(b) of the TAA does not exist
where there is no sale for exportation to the United States.
Based on the evidence available, the Yak 52 aircraft cannot be
appraised on the basis of transaction value of identical or
similar merchandise pursuant to 402(c) of the TAA, deductive
value pursuant to 402(d) of the TAA, or computed value pursuant
to 402(e) of the TAA. Accordingly, you are directed to appraise
the merchandise at $12,000 in accordance with 402(f) of the TAA
based on the transaction value of similar merchandise adjusted
for the country of production, as set forth above.
The Protest is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
described above. In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs
Directive 099 3550-065 dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised
Protest Directive, this decision, together with the Customs Form
19, should be mailed by your office to the protestant no later
than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of
the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished
prior to mailing the decision. Sixty days from the date of the
decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to
make the decision available to customs personnel via the Customs
Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette
Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act and other public
access channels.
Sincerely,
Acting Director
International Trade Compliance
Division