VAL OT:RR:CTF:VS H050895 RSD
Field Director
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of International Trade
Office of Regulatory Audit
2220 Grandview Drive Fort Mitchell, Kentucky 41017
Dear Field Director:
This is in response to your memorandum dated January 23, 2009, requesting internal advice as to whether certain payments made by the importer, Bass Pro, to three purported buying agents would be non-dutiable as buying commissions. In a letter dated July 29, 2008, Bass Pro’s counsel raised the issue of whether the transactions between Bass Pro and the alleged buying agents are really first sales in multi-tier transactions which should serve as the basis of appraisement under Nissho Iwai American v. United States 982 F.2. 505 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The second issue that your office inquired about in your request for internal advice concerns the dutiability of certain royalty payments made by Bass Pro. The royalties issue will be addressed in a separate decision letter.
FACTS:
The importer in this is matter is Bass Pro, a retailer of fishing gear, hunting paraphernalia, clothing, optics, footwear, home furnishings, camping equipment, jewelry and sporting goods. The Office of Regulatory Audit conducted a Focused Assessment (FA) Audit of Bass Pro’s import operation for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 30, 2006. Part of the FA audit concerned a review of a number of import transactions in which Bass Pro used the services of entities alleged to be buying agents. The alleged agents were Pro Line Manufacturing (Pro Line), Strategic Orient Sources (SOS), and a division of SOS called Sharp Shot. Bass Pro claimed that the money it paid to these entities were bona fide buying commissions, and thus should be excluded from the total value of the merchandise reported to CBP. Your office disputes that these entities were acting as bona fide buying agents. It is your position that any money that Bass Pro paid to Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot should be considered dutiable as an addition to the price actually paid or payable of the merchandise that Bass Pro imported into the United States.
Pro Line Agency
The first alleged buying agent, Pro Line, is based in Wayne, New Jersey.
It was formerly known either as Red Line Products and Top Line Products. At the request of the auditors, Bass Pro presented a document from 2006 labeled “Standard Vendor Agreement”. The Agreement listed Pro Line as the “Vendor”, and set forth the conditions and terms that Bass Pro and Pro Line would follow in the purchasing of merchandise. It is noted that the agreement indicates that the vendor is a manufacturer or distributor of goods and/or services, which it desires to sell to the purchaser. There is no indication in the agreement that Pro
Line would function as an agent for Bass Pro. For the period under review in the FA, there is no record of any formalized written buying agency agreement between Pro Line and Bass Pro. However, the record does contain a memorandum written by a vice president from Pro Line dated December 23, 2005. The memorandum indicates that Pro Line’s agent commission will be reduced by two percent. Bass Pro also kept a commission log which listed Pro Line as one of its buying agents, and the log showed the commission rate.
According to the Office of Regulatory Audit, when Pro Line was involved in a transaction, Bass Pro typically entered the merchandise by using a commercial invoice with the heading “Pro Line Manufacturing Co. LLC” and its U.S. based address. In the documents from a sample transaction analyzed by the Office of Regulatory Audit, the Bass Pro’s electronic archive payment report indicated that it made a payment directly to Pro Line. The Pro Line invoices that Bass Pro presented to CBP when it made entry for the merchandise contained no statement to indicate that a commission was being paid to Pro Line on the transaction. Rather, Pro Line generated a second invoice, which contained a certain percentage mark up above the price of the merchandise shown on the invoice presented to CBP. On the invoice the markup was listed as “MISC CHARGES”. The Office of Regulatory Audit requested actual invoices from the factory that produced the imported merchandise. The example factory invoice that was obtained for this transaction showed a price which was $1776 less than the price that Pro Line charged Bass Pro for the merchandise. In addition, the invoice prepare by the factory was dated May 17, 2010, while the invoice that Pro Line issued to Bass Pro was dated May 10, 2006.
In another transaction reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Audit, the Pro Line invoice, which was used to make entry, listed “Pro Line Hangzhou 310021 China” as the manufacturer. No factory invoice was provided to CBP with the entry and the bill of lading provided with the entry listed Pro Line as the shipper. Two additional entries reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Audit included a Pro Line invoice heading, but showed no manufacturer. The invoice also showed that Pro Line was DBA (doing business as) Pacific Eagle Enterprise in Taiwan. In addition, the Office of Regulatory Audit discovered that on Pro Line’s web site, there was indication that the company had ties to a manufacturer and that it had acted as a manufacturer’s representative.
Subsequently, the Port of St. Louis sent Bass Pro a Request for Information on a CBP Form 28, which requested that Bass Pro furnish any written contact that it may have with Pro Line. The Port of St. Louis further asked for details on the alleged buying commission that was paid separately. Bass Pro submitted a copy of a buying agency agreement which was signed by Pro Line on May 15, 2008. Under this buying agency agreement, Bass Pro was to pay a certain buying agency commission to Pro Line based on the FOB price. However, the price that Pro Line charged Bass Pro was higher than the price the factory charged Pro Line. Bass Pro indicated that Pro Line charged a higher price than the factory charged because it included payments for certain functions that Pro Line performed for Bass Pro. The higher price that Pro Line charged Bass Pro was in addition to the commissions that it received.
SOS/Sharp Shot Agency
The record contains a buying agent agreement that Bass Pro and SOS signed on April 14, 2005. The agreement was submitted by Bass Pro’s broker to the Port of St. Louis on May 10, 2005. The buying agent agreement specifies that the principal has control over the agent, and the principal is active in selecting the merchandise and the factories, while the agent has discretion in the purchase of the merchandise. The merchandise is purchased by the agent on behalf of the principal and the factories are aware that the principal and not the agent is the purchaser of the merchandise. The agent is to be compensated solely by the commission paid by the principal, and it receives no remuneration from the factories, nor does it share its commission with any of the manufacturers. The agent does not buy for its own account, but only for the principal’s account and only upon the instructions from the principal.
The Office of Regulatory Audit reviewed a typical transaction in which SOS was involved. In the transaction, Bass Pro entered the merchandise by presenting a commercial invoice with a SOS heading to CBP. The SOS invoice showed an amount for the value of merchandise, a certain percent buying commission, for a grand total amount which was equal to the total value of the merchandise plus the buying commission. The subtotal amount listed before the addition of the invoice commission was the value of merchandise that Bass Pro reported to CBP, when it entered the merchandise. However, the amount shown on “Grand Total” line, which included the commissions, was the total amount of money that Bass Pro actually paid to SOS to obtain the merchandise. The purchase order price was higher than the amount shown on the invoices. For the sample transaction, the purchase orders issued by Bass Pro to SOS showed that the individual purchase orders unit price included the commission amount. In other words, the buying commission was built into the price that SOS charged Bass Pro for the merchandise. This alleged commission percentage amount was then deducted on a per-unit price basis to arrive at a lower SOS invoice price that would be reported to CBP when the merchandise was entered. Basically, the entered invoice unit prices were the specified percentage lower than those listed on the purchase order that SOS issued to Bass Pro. The amount that Bass Pro paid to SOS was the figure shown on SOS’s purchase orders that included the certain percent commission.
Factory invoices were not usually provided with the entry documents presented to CBP for the transactions in which S0S/Sharp Shot were involved. The Office of Regulatory Audit requested and reviewed the factory invoices for seven SOS transactions and two Sharp Shot transactions. The Office of Regulatory Audit tried to determine whether the amounts that the actual manufacturer or vendor charged for the merchandise agreed with the amounts that SOS and Sharp Shot charged Bass Pro. On the seven SOS entries and two Sharp Shot entries reviewed in the sample transactions, the amounts that the factory or vendor charged did not match the amount that the agent was charging Bass Pro because prices shown on the agent’s invoice were always higher than the amount that the factory or vendor charged.
When asked why there is a difference between the prices shown on the factory invoices and the prices shown on the SOS/Sharp Shot invoices, the Office of Regulatory Audit was informed that SOS/Sharp Shot performed many functions on Bass Pro’s behalf to maintain the quality standards and social accountability requirements for its private label brand goods. SOS/Sharp Shot performed these services in addition to their standard buying agent duties, and these services would vary with different product types and factory locations. Because of the variance in product types and factory locations, the additional expense had to be built into the cost of the goods.
FIRST SALE
After receiving an analysis from the Office Regulatory Audit that the payments to Pro Line and SOS should be considered as dutiable and should be added to the price actually paid or payable (Finding Sheet 1 of the Focused Assessment Report), Bass Pro obtained the services of outside counsel. Counsel contends that if Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot are determined not to be bona fide buying agents, then they should instead be considered resellers and that the correct appraised value is the price paid by them to the manufacturers plus any assists or other statutory additions to this price as set forth in Nissho Iwai American Corp. v. United States 982 F.2d. 505 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Counsel indicates that the terms of sale between the alleged middlemen and manufactures were identical, suggesting that there was a simultaneous passage of title from the manufacturers to the middlemen and from the middlemen to Bass Pro. Counsel also submitted a series of transaction documents from the entries involving Pro Line and SOS to demonstrate that these entities acted as sellers and that the merchandise was destined to the United States. The documents include a Bass Pro purchase order, a factory invoice, invoices from Pro Line and SOS, proof of payment and bills of lading. We note that the factory invoices and other documents submitted do not identify Pro Line or SOS as buyers of the imported merchandise from factory.
ISSUES:
1) Whether certain payments made by Bass Pro to Pro-Line and SOS/Sharp Shot constitute bona fide buying commissions such that they would not be added to the price actually paid or payable under 19 U.S.C. §1401a(b)?
2) In the alternative, whether the transactions between Bass Pro and Pro Line and S0S/Sharp Sharp constitute a sale for exportation which may form the basis of appraisement for the imported merchandise?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Merchandise imported into the United States is appraised in accordance with the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. §1401a; TAA). The preferred basis of appraisement is transaction value, defined as "the price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States." 19 U.S.C.
§1401a(b)(1). Accordingly, we have assumed for the purposes of this ruling as it regards that transaction value is the appropriate basis of appraisement.
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. §402(b)(4). Buying commissions are fees paid by an importer to his agent for the service of representing him abroad in purchasing the good being valued. As a general matter, bona fide buying commissions are not added to the price actually paid or payable. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. v. United States, 708 F. Supp. 351, (CIT 1989); Rosenthal-Netter, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. Supp. 21, (1988); Jay-Arr Slimwear, Inc. v. United States, 681 F. Supp. 875, (CIT 1988).
The existence of a bona fide buying commission depends upon the relevant factors of each particular case J.C. Penney Purchasing Corp. v. United States, 451 F. Supp. 973 (Cust. Ct. 1978). In this regard the importer has the burden of proving the existence of a bona fide agency relationship and that payments to the agent constitute bona fide buying commissions. Rosenthal-Netter, Inc. v. United States, Supra; New Trends, Inc. v. United States., 645 F. Supp. 957, (CIT 1986); B.W. Wholesale Co., Inc. v. United States., 462 F. Supp. 1399, 1403, 58 CCPA 92, C.A.D. 1010 (1971). The alleged agent performs duties on behalf of its principal, the buyer. It may not act as an independent seller, nor as a representative of the manufacturer. United States v. Manhattan Novelty Corp., 63 Cust. Ct. 699, A.R.D. 263 (1969). A relevant factor in considering the relationship is the fact that none of the commission paid by the buyer inures to the benefit of the seller, as stated in Reliance International Corp. v. United States, 849, 305 F.Supp. 20, 24 (Cust. Ct. 1969):
Commissions paid by the purchaser to agents for services rendered in procuring the merchandise, inspecting and packing goods, arranging for shipment and acting as a paymaster for account of the buyer, no part of which commissions inure to the benefit of the seller, are buying commissions.
In determining whether an agency relationship exists, the primary consideration is the right of the principal to control the agent's conduct with respect to those matters entrusted to the agent. Jay-Arr Slimwear, supra. at 879. The degree of discretion granted the agent is a further consideration. New Trends Inc. v. United States, Supra. The existence of a buying agency agreement, moreover, has been viewed as supporting the existence of a buying agency relationship. Dorco Imports v. United States, 67 Cust. Ct. 503, 512, R.D. 11753 (1971). In addition, the courts have examined such factors as whether the purported agent's actions were primarily for the benefit of the principal; whether the agent was responsible for the shipping and handling and the costs thereof; whether the language used in the commercial invoices was consistent with a principal-agent relationship; whether the agent bore the risk of loss for damaged, lost or defective merchandise; and whether the agent was financially detached from the manufacturer of the merchandise. New Trends, Supra.
It is the position of CBP that "having legal authority to act as buying agent and acting as buying agent [are] two different matters" and that CBP is entitled to examine evidence that proves the latter. U.S. Customs Service General Notice, 11 Cust. Bull. & Dec. 15 (March 15, 1989).
With respect to the first alleged buying agency, we note that there was no formalized written buying agency agreement between Bass Pro and Pro Line until May 15, 2008. As such, before May 15, 2008, we are unable to determine Pro Line’s duties and responsibilities in relation to Bass Pro’s transactions. The record contains a standard vendor agreement listing Pro Line as a vendor. This agreement specifies that Pro Line was a vendor, manufacturer or a distributor of goods and/or services which it desires to sell to the purchaser. There is no indication in this agreement that Pro Line would function as an agent. Moreover, the Pro Line invoices contained no statement to indicate that commissions were being paid on the transaction. Although Pro Line issued invoices to Bass Pro for import shipments which displayed additional charges, these invoices did not specify that these charges were for buying commissions. Rather, the charges were specified on the invoices as “Misc Charges”. There is also no indication that Pro Line kept the alleged buying commissions separate when it remitted payments to the factory. We find it especially significant that the Pro Line invoices that it issued to Bass Pro and that were presented to CBP at entry showed Bass Pro was charged a higher price for merchandise than was charged on the factory invoices. This indicates that Pro Line received compensation beyond that of the alleged buying commission.
In determining whether a bona fide buying agency exists between Bass Pro and an alleged "buying agent", the primary consideration is the right of the principal to control the agent's conduct with respect to matters entrusted to him. Based on the foregoing analysis, we find that the totality of the evidence provided to CBP regarding the relationship between Pro Line and Bass Pro does not demonstrate that Pro Line was a bona fide buying agent, but rather a selling agent or an independent seller. Because we have determined that insufficient evidence has been submitted to enable us to find that Pro Line was acting as a bona fide buying agent for Bass Pro, we further conclude that the amounts identified as “buying commissions” constitute part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise.
In regard to SOS, we note that Bass Pro and SOS entered into a buying agency agreement on April 14, 2005. Although there is no specific buying agency agreement with Sharp Shot, it is our understanding that since SOS and Sharp Shot were related parties, these entities were treated in the same way. While the existence of a buying agency agreement tends to support a finding a "bona fide" buying agency relationship, it is CBP’s position that "having legal authority to act as a buying agent and acting as a buying agent are two separate matters and CBP is entitled to examine evidence which proves the latter. General Notice, 23:11 Cust. B. & Dec. 9 (March 15, 1989). See also, HQ 546284 dated July 14, 1997.
We note that the buying commissions were built into the price shown on the purchase orders that Bass Pro issued to the SOS and Sharp Shot. In Monarch Luggage Co., Inc. v. United States, 715 F. Supp. 1115, 13 CIT 523
(CIT 1989), the court found that the evidence submitted did establish the agents were bona fide buying agents. However, with respect to certain entries, the invoices submitted indicated that the commissions were calculated by dividing the FOB price by a specific figure. The commissions were then deducted from the invoiced FOB price of the merchandise. The court found that because the amounts attributable to the buying commissions were part of the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise, the amounts were properly included in
the dutiable value of the imported merchandise. For the other entries made after late 1981, a different invoicing method was used whereby the commission was calculated by multiplying the FOB price by a certain amount, and remitting the commission amount separately by check from the buyer to the agent. Under these circumstances the court found that the commissions became an amount separate from and in addition to the price for the merchandise. Thus, these commissions were properly excluded from the dutiable value of the merchandise. In view of the court's decision in Monarch, we find that because the subject buying commissions are calculated by deducting an amount from the invoiced FOB total, the commissions are included in the dutiable value of the merchandise. As noted by the court in Monarch, a mere change in the method of invoicing, if it is only in form and really not in substance, would not suffice to change [the party] from a selling agent, if it had been one, to a buying agent. Monarch at 525. Where buying commissions are calculated by deducting an amount from the total FOB invoiced value, such commissions are dutiable as part of the price actually paid or payable, regardless whether the buying agency relationship is bona fide in all other respects.
Consequently, the method of paying the agent's commissions in this case, would not be sufficient to establish a bona fide buying commission. There was no separate invoicing of the commissions, as SOS/Sharp Shot put both the selling price and the commission on the same invoice. Consequently, we are not satisfied that the agent's commission would be sufficiently separate from the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise. See HQ 544668 dated July 15, 1991.
We also note that the factory invoices reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Audit showed that the factory prices of imported merchandise were below that of the prices shown on the invoices that SOS and Sharp Shot furnished to Bass Pro. In other words, SOS/Sharp Shot charged Bass Pro more for the imported merchandise than the prices shown on factory invoices. This means that the agents received compensation for their services beyond that of the commission. This is in conflict with a buying agreement which indicates that the agent is to be compensated solely through the commission paid by the principal. As such, we believe this indicates that Bass Pro lacks sufficient control over SOS and Sharp Shot that is typically present in a principal-agent relationship. In another case, Office of Regulatory Audit Office discovered that SOS paid for the costs of repairing defective merchandise. We note that generally, an agent will not bear the risk of loss of the goods as "it is uncharacteristic of an agency relationship to allow the intermediary to bear the risk for damaged, lost, or defective merchandise.” Rosenthal-Netter, 12 CIT at , 679 F. Supp. at 26. See also dated HQ 544676 July 24, 1991.
Based on the information submitted, we find that any amounts paid to SOS and Sharp Shot for the services they performed in purchasing merchandise
for Bass Pro would not be considered bona fide buying commissions and would
constitute part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b).
FIRST SALE CLAIM
Because we have determined that SOS and Pro-Line are not bona fide buying agents, we must consider Counsel’s contention that these parties are really resellers, and that the imported merchandise should be appraised based on the price that these parties paid to the manufacturers. In Nissho Iwai American Corp. v. United States, ibid. and Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT 18 (1993), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade, respectively, reviewed the standard for determining transaction value when there is more than one sale which may be considered as being a sale for exportation to the United States. Both cases involved a foreign manufacturer, a middleman, and a United States purchaser. In each case, the court held that the price paid by the middleman/importer to the manufacturer was the proper basis for transaction value. Each court further stated that in order for a transaction to be viable under the valuation statute, it must be a sale conducted at arm’s length, free from any non-market influences, and involving merchandise clearly destined for export to the United States at the time of the first sale.
In accordance with the Nissho Iwai and Synergy decisions, we presume that transaction value is based on the price paid by the importer. In further keeping with the courts’ holdings, we note that an importer may request appraisement based on the price paid by the middleman to the foreign manufacturer in situations where the middleman is not the importer. However, it will be the importer’s responsibility to show that the "first sale" price is acceptable under the standard set forth in Nissho Iwai and Synergy. That is, the importer must present sufficient evidence that the alleged sale was a bona fide "arm’s
length sale," and that it was "a sale for export to the United States," within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1401a.
In Treasury Decision ("T.D.") 96-87, 30 Cust. Bull. 52/1 (January 2, 1997), CBP set forth the documentation and information needed to rebut the presumption to support a determination request that transaction value should be based on a sale involving a middleman and the manufacturer or other seller rather than on the sale in which the importer was a party. CBP advised that the importer must provide a description of the roles of the parties involved and must supply relevant documentation addressing each transaction that was involved in the exportation of the merchandise to the United States. The documents may include, but are not limited to purchase orders, invoices, proof of payment, contracts, and any additional documents (e.g. correspondence) that establishes how the parties deal with one another. The objective is to provide CBP with "a complete paper trail of the imported merchandise showing the structure of the
entire transaction." If such information is unavailable, the information provided is insufficient. T.D. 96-87 further provides that the importer must also inform CBP of any statutory additions and their amounts. If the information is insufficient, the sale between the middleman and the manufacturer cannot form the basis of transaction value.
During the FA audit Bass Pro maintained that the entities were agents, and in entering the imported merchandise, Bass Pro presented its purchase orders to the “agents” not the purchase orders from the “agents” to the factories. According to the Office of Regulatory Audit, the “agents’” purchase orders to the factories were not provided on any of the requested transactions involving these agents during the FA. It is only after the buying agencies were questioned did Bass Pro decide that it needed to change the roles of these parties from buying agents to that of resellers.
We take notice that during the course of the FA, a document titled “Value 110—Middleman Transactions” prepared for Bass Pro in a scanned version was made available to the auditors. The document explained the “first sale” principal, and it described the process to be followed if Bass Pro ever utilized the services of a bona fide middleman. The first page of the scanned document is marked by the company with a notation that said “BPS has never done this”. This
indicates that using a middleman to procure merchandise was not part of the procedures that Bass Pro followed in importing merchandise into the United States.
We also find it significant that in three sample transactions that the Office of Regulatory Audit reviewed, the invoices from the factory are dated after the invoices from the alleged “middleman” to Bass Pro. This creates a strong question as to whether there was a legitimate first sale between the middlemen and the manufacturer in which the merchandise was clearly destined to the United States. We also find it significant that none of the representative transaction documents that counsel submitted identifies Pro Line or SOS as a buyer of the imported merchandise. Rather, for the entry involving Pro Line, the factory invoice specifically identifies TMC as the buyer, while Pro Line is named as a consignee. Counsel explains that TMC provided financing for Pro Line. Similarly, in the entries involving SOS, the factory invoices do not specifically identify SOS as the buyer. Thus the documents presented do not support the claim that Pro Line and SOS purchased the imported merchandise from the manufacturer so that they could resell it to Bass Pro.
In HQ 546658 dated January 30, 1998, we indicated that it must be evident throughout the transaction that the merchandise was clearly destined for the United States and that it is not sufficient to establish after the merchandise was ordered and manufactured, at the time of shipment, near the end of the transaction, that it will be going to the United States. Importantly, there is no indication on any of the transaction documents that Pro Line and SOS held title to the merchandise before it was delivered to Bass Pro. Although counsel has pointed out that CBP has previously ruled that a bona fide sale could take place even when there is a simultaneous passage of title, we do not believe that the evidence in this case shows that Pro Line or SOS/Sharp Shot ever assumed title to the imported merchandise by bearing the risk of loss or had control over it. Although the transaction documents indicate that the merchandise was to be shipped to the United States, we believe that there is scant evidence to establish that the parties were functioning as buyers and sellers. Throughout the course of dealing with Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot, there is no evidence Bass Pro considered them as resellers. In fact, in the case of Pro Line, Bass Pro presented a buying agency agreement dated May 15, 2008 to the Office of Regulatory Audit. This agreement outlined Pro Line’s actions as that of a buying agent, not a middleman which would undermine the claim that there was a first sale between the manufacturer and Pro Line. Under these circumstances, we find that the evidence presented is insufficient to demonstrate that there was a bona fide sale between Bass Pro and Pro Line or SOS/ Sharp Shot. Although as explained above we find that Bass Pro did not exercise sufficient control over Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot for these parties to be considered as bona fide buying agents, we also find that based on the information presented, the actions of these parties was not sufficient enough for them to be considered independent sellers in a first sale of a multi-tier transaction.
HOLDING:
Based on the information presented, we find that any compensation paid to Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot for the services they performed in purchasing merchandise on behalf of Bass Pro would not be considered bona fide buying commissions and would constitute part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b).
In addition, the transactions between the Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot and the manufacturers do not constitute bona fide sales nor is there sufficient evidence that the merchandise was clearly destined for export to the United States. Accordingly, an appraisement using the transactions between Pro Line and SOS/Sharp Shot and the manufacturers is not appropriate.
This decision should be mailed to the internal advice applicant no later than sixty days from the date of this letter. On that date, Regulations and Rulings of the Office of International Trade will make the decision available to CBP personnel and to the public via the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, through the Freedom of Information Act, and by other methods of public distribution. Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation & Special Programs Branch