OT:RR:CTF:VS H331108 AMW
Mr. Louis S. Shoichet, Esq.
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1805-06
New York, NY 10017
RE: Valuation of Imported Watches and Watch Components; Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91,
HTSUS
Dear Mr. Shoichet:
This is in response to your request of March 15, 2023, on behalf of your client, [
] (the “requestor”). In your letter, you request a ruling pursuant to 19 CFR Part
177 concerning the valuation of watches and watch components imported by your client.
Your client has asked that certain information submitted in connection with this internal
advice request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of
19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(7), your client’s request for confidentiality is approved. The information
contained within brackets as well as all documents forwarded to our office will not be released to the
public and will be withheld from the published version of this decision.
FACTS:
The following information is based on your March 15, 2023, ruling request and follow-up
information provided to this office on October 2, 2023, November 14, 2023, and July 12, 2024.
The requestor is an importer and distributor of watches containing both Swiss and other foreign-
made components. All watches imported by the requestor are purchased from wholly owned
subsidiary companies.
Your ruling request relates to two types of imported watches, which you refer to as: (1)
“Self-Sourced Watches,” and (2) “Third-Party Sourced Watches.” The Self-Sourced Watches
consist of watches whose components (e.g., movements, hands, dials, pushers, crowns, cases,
and bands, bracelets or straps) are sourced by your client’s Swiss subsidiary and are assembled in
Switzerland by a third-party contractor. These watches include only Swiss-origin movements.
The Self-Sourced Watches category consists of three Swiss brands owned by the requestor: [
], [ ], and [ ] (the “Swiss Brands”). The Third-Party Sourced watches consist of
watches that are purchased as complete watches by the requestor’s Hong Kong subsidiary or, to a
lesser extent, by its Swiss subsidiary from third-party contract manufacturers that source the
parts themselves based on the requestor’s specifications. Most Third-Party Sourced Watches are
produced in China. The Third-Party Sourced Watches consist of two brands owned by the
requestor, [ ] and [ ], as well as several that are sold under exclusive license
for several unrelated companies, including [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], and
[ ] (the “Fashion Brands”).
Most of the imported watches are mechanical display watches with electrically operated
quartz crystal movements having zero to one jewels or with two or more jewels and are classified
under heading 9102, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). In addition,
the requestor also imports watches with mechanical movements, including models with
automatic winding, which are also classified under heading 9102, HTSUS.
In the past, the requestor has utilized four different component cost allocation formulas to
apportion the value of imported watches based on the specific value of the four individual
dutiable components (i.e., movement, case, strap/band, and battery) as required by Chapter 91 of
the HTSUS. These formulas were based on watch construction and factored in the level of skill,
time, effort, and complexity of assembly operations as well as the significance of each
component in the function and reputation of the watch. These formulas were derived from the
information available to the requestor for its Self-Sourced Watches, as well as from the
company’s knowledge and experience in the watch industry. The same formulas were used for
Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced watches. The requestor never filed or received a ruling
request related to these formulas, and they are not subject to the instant request.
The requestor now proposes to use two different methods of valuing its Self-Sourced and
Third-Party Sourced Watches. Specifically, for Self-Sourced Watches, recent software upgrades
and information management enhancements have improved the requestor’s ability to track the
value of Self-Sourced Watches to the individual component level. As a result, instead of using
the historical allocation formulas, the requestor proposes to calculate and declare the portion of
the total entered value of each Self-Sourced Watch SKU (stock keeping unit) attributable to the
four statistical breakouts (i.e., movement, case, strap/band, and battery). These values will be
derived from the component parts and material costs data provided by its suppliers, typically in
the form of invoices issued to the requestor or its subsidiaries. Once the component and material
costs are allocated to the four breakouts, the requestor asserts that the values provided for the
four breakouts will not add to the total value of the watch because such amounts do not account
for value related to intellectual property (e.g., trademarks), overhead, and profit. As a result, the
requestor seeks to deduct the cost of the case, strap/band, and battery from the import value and
attribute all remaining value to the movement. In doing so, the entirety of the watch’s value
attributable to overhead, profit, and intellectual property would be included in the valuation of
the movement. The requestor asserts that its proposed valuation apportionment is in line with
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H259490,
dated April 4, 2017. In that matter, CBP permitted the importer of certain “shop-worn” watches
to deduct the costs of the watch case, strap or band, and battery from the overall value of the
watch to determine the value of the watch movement.
2
For the Third-Party Sourced Watches, the requestor does not have a direct relationship
with component suppliers and does not have access to specific component cost data. Instead, the
requestor proposes to estimate the value of the Third-Party Sourced Watch components based on
the cost of comparable watch parts purchased for its Self-Sourced Watches. As with its
historical pricing formulas, the requestor will create set formulas to value specific groupings of
its Third-Party Sourced watches, which will be based on various construction attributes (i.e., case
material; strap/band material; whether the movement is electronically operated, automatic, or
manually wound; and the type of display). These formulas will be used to calculate the values of
the components in specific watch groupings (typically watches with similar physical
characteristics), and each allocation formula will be determined on an annual or more frequent
basis by calculating the weighted average allocation of each of the four statistical breakouts of all
Self-Sourced Watch SKUs of that same construction grouping and applying that breakdown to
Third-Party Sourced watches purchased and imported by the requestor. Once again, for the
portions of the watch value attributable to labor, overhead, profit, and intellectual property, the
requestor proposes to subtract the value attributable to the case, strap/band, and battery from the
total customs value and attribute the entire amount to the value of the movement.
In support of this methodology, the requestor asserts that the component data obtained
from its Self-Sourced Watches can be verified via documentation supplied by manufacturers
during the bidding process and because there is significant regional overlap in the supply chains
used for both its Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced watches. As noted above, the requestor
has also provided an illustrative sample of the pricing data it obtains in relation to its Self-
Sourced Watches, and which is of the kind that may be used in estimating the value of
comparable Third-Party Sourced Watches. These documents include invoices documenting the
cost of various watch components and assembly charges incurred. The requestor has also
provided an illustrative product specification form used during the bidding process for one of its
Third-Party Sourced Watch models, which provides cost estimates of various component parts.
In support of its proposal to subtract the value attributable to the case, strap/band, and battery
from the total value to obtain the value of the movement, the requestor again asserts that such a
methodology is permissible pursuant to HQ H259490, in which this office permitted a similar
methodology with respect to the import of certain used, “shop-worn” watches.
Should CBP find HQ H259490 inapplicable, the requestor proposes an alternative
allocation methodology for both its Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced Watches. To begin
with, the requestor would allocate component costs in the same manner as above (i.e., by
utilizing its updated software to calculate the value of individual components of each watch
SKU). However, instead of allocating all labor, overhead, and profit costs to the movement (i.e.,
by subtracting the material costs of the band/bracelet, case, and battery from the total value), the
requestor proposes allocating such costs to the various breakouts based on data provided by its
third-party manufacturers and Swiss subsidiary.
In relation to the Self-Sourced Watches, the requestor proposes to calculate the value for
each statistical breakout (i.e., the movement, case, strap/band, and battery) based on the material
cost for each component, plus an apportioned value for (1) assembly costs, and (2) overhead and
profit costs. In addition, the requestor states that its proposed calculations eliminate brand and
3
intellectual property costs and that any such intellectual property and branding incurred by the
foreign subsidiary exporter are recouped in the profit markup charged by that subsidiary.
In apportioning the assembly costs, the requestor provides an “assembly analysis,” in
which it proposes to allocate assembly costs to each statistical breakout based on a weighted
average in which the estimated raw percentage of time devoted to each assembly step is
multiplied by an assessment of that step’s relative skill level. In doing so, the requestor would
base its calculations on the exemplary data provided by one of its third-party assemblers,
[ ] (the “Third Party Assembler”). For example, the requestor asserts, “dial installation is
estimated to represent 10% of the total watch assembly time but requires a low skill level.
Accordingly, the percentage of assembly cost to apply to this specific step is adjusted downward
to reflect the lower skill level.” Based on its review of the Third-Party Assembler’s exemplary
data, the requestor proposes to allocate the assembly costs for all Self-Sourced Watches in the
following manner: 83% to the movement, 14% to the case, and 3% to the strap/band.
In apportioning the costs associated with overhead and profit to each breakout, the
requestor provides an “overhead analysis,” in which it proposes to allocate overhead and profit
costs to each statistical breakout based on five separately purchased components: (1) dial, (2)
hands, (3) movement module, (4) case, and (5) strap/band. In so doing, the company provided
data obtained from its enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system showing all major cost
centers associated with watch production (e.g., logistics, quality control, warehousing, and
capital expenditures) and generally proposes to allocate the costs evenly to each of the five
abovementioned components. Accordingly, for every Self-Sourced Watch, the requestor
proposes to allocate 60% of the overhead and profit value to the movement (20% each for the
movement module, dial, and hands), 20% to the case, and 20% to the strap/band.
For the Third-Party Sourced watches, the requestor states that the proposed allocation
will be based upon the weighted average allocation percentages discussed above for similarly
classified Self-Sourced Watches. The requestor asserts this approach is feasible because both
sets of watches (i.e., Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced) share similar characteristics and
construction features. For instance, both categories are subject to the same water resistance
testing, must meet the requestor’s reliability testing protocols, and are subject to its general
technical specifications and requirements for its suppliers.
ISSUE:
Whether the methods proposed by the requestor to appraise imported Self-Sourced and
Third-Party Sourced Watches and their components are acceptable and comply with the
requirements of Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91 of the HTSUS.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Merchandise imported into the United States is appraised in accordance with Section 402
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. §
1401a). The preferred method of appraisement of imported merchandise for customs purposes is
transaction value. Transaction value is the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise
4
when sold for export to the United States, plus certain enumerated additions. 19 U.S.C. § 1401
a(b)(l). The term “price actually paid or payable” means the total payment (whether direct or
indirect, and exclusive of any costs, charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance,
and related services incident to the international shipment of the merchandise from the country of
exportation to the place of importation in the United States) made, or to be made, for imported
merchandise by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the seller. 19 U.S.C § 1401a(b)(4)(A). The
duty assessed upon imported merchandise is most often, though not always, based upon a
percentage of the appraised value of the merchandise, i.e., an ad valorem duty.
Beyond the general requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1401a, in appraising watches and
timepieces, the HTSUS also requires that certain additional information regarding watch
component valuation be declared to CBP. Watches are classified in Chapter 91, HTSUS. The
Additional U.S. Notes to Chapter 91 inform us as to the elements of a watch. Specifically,
Additional U.S. Note 1 provides:
For the purposes of this chapter:
(a) The term “watches” embraces timepieces (including timepieces having special
features, such as chronographs, calendar watches and watches designed for use in
skin diving) of a kind for wearing or carrying on the person whether or not the
movement contained therein conforms to the definition of “watch movements” in
note 3, above. Timepieces incorporating a stand, however simple, are not classifiable
as watches.
We note that this is essentially the same definition of “watches” provided in the prior Tariff
Schedules of the United States, with minor differences. Additional U.S. Note 2 provides:
Watch straps, watch bands and watch bracelets entered with wrist watches and of a kind
normally sold therewith, whether or not attached, are classified with the watch in heading
9101 or 9102. Otherwise, watch straps, watch bands and watch bracelets shall be
classified in heading 9113.
Wrist watches imported into the United States, are not assessed duty on the appraised
value of the watch and strap, band or bracelet as a whole. Duty is instead assessed on the
allocation of the appraised value of watch components, as duty is assessed against the
components, and not the watch. In relevant part, Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91 of the HTSUS,
provides additional information regarding the duty rate set forth for the subject watches and
states, in relevant part, as follows:
The calculation of duties on various watches, clocks, watch movements and clock
movements requires that these articles be constructively separated into their component
parts and each component separately valued. The individual components shall be
separately reported under the statistical suffixes show (sic) below. In each instance the
sum of the values of the individual components shall be equal to the total value of the
article. . . .
5
In other words, Statistical Note 1 to Chapter 91 of the HTSUS provides that the value of a watch
must be reported to CBP by specifying the value of four individual components (also referred to herein as
the “statistical breakouts”). The four statistical breakouts are: (1) the movement; (2) the case; (3) the
strap, band, or bracelet; and (4) the battery. The total value of the watch must equal the value of the
individual breakouts. See also, See United States v. Continental Lemania, Inc., 21 CCPA 192
(1933) (“In a long line of decisions, among them United States v. European Watch Co., 11 Cust.
Ct. App. 363, T.D. 59160, it is definitely settled that watch movements and watchcases had by
judicial determination, as well as by departmental direction, attained a settled definite status as
separate entities for tariff purposes prior to the act of 1913.”)
The requestor states that the imported watches primarily involve mechanical display
watches not made of precious metal with battery-operated quartz crystal movements having zero
to one jewels in the movement or with two or more jewels in the movement. These watches are
classified in tariff provisions of Heading 9102, HTSUS, and are associated with four statistical
breakouts (i.e., movement; case; strap, band or bracelet; and battery). See Chapter 91, HTSUS,
Statistical Note 1(a). To a lesser extent, the requestor also imports mechanical movement
watches, including those with automatic winding. These watches are also classified in tariff
provisions of Heading 9102, HTSUS, and are associated with three statistical breakouts (i.e.,
movement; case; and strap, band or bracelet). See Chapter 91, HTSUS, Statistical Note 1(d).
Each of these components is subject to a different duty rate under the HTSUS, with the
movement typically subject to a fixed monetary amount and the remainder to an ad valorem
percentage.
For both its Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced Watches, the requestor proposes to
calculate the value of the movement by deducting the material cost of the components
comprising the case, strap/band, and battery from the total value of the watch. In doing so, the
entire labor, profit, and intellectual property costs associated with the watch would be included in
the valuation of the movement, which is typically assessed a fixed duty, as opposed to an ad
valorem rate typically applied to the case, strap/band, and battery. In proposing this
methodology, the requestor seeks to have CBP extend the rationale outlined in HQ H259490,
dated April 4, 2017, to both the Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced Watches.
In HQ H259490, the importer, Timeworks International Inc. (“Timeworks”), engaged in
the importation of watches under two different types of transactions. The first type of transaction
involved the importer engaging manufacturers to produce watches for sale (the “manufacturer-
produced watches”). As Timeworks engaged the manufacturers directly, it had access to
invoices showing the actual costs of the watch components assessed duty under the watch
provisions set forth in Chapter 91. The second type of transaction involved Timeworks
importing, for the most part, “shop-worn” luxury watches (e.g., factory-condition luxury watches
previously used as shop display models, possibly with slight scratching or cosmetic defects). For
the shop-worn watches, Timeworks knew the complete amount it paid for a finished watch, but
did not have insight into the individual statistical breakouts. As a result, Timeworks developed a
spreadsheet, based upon its experience and familiarity with the direct manufacturing costs of
similar items, upon which to base values for watch components in the shop-worn watches. To
6
determine the value of a shop-worn watch’s movement, Timeworks subtracted the calculated
value of the watch case, strap/bracelet, and battery (if the watch had a quartz movement) from
the amount paid for the finished watch. In reviewing Timeworks’ proposal, CBP stated that
“based on the fact that Timeworks has access to cost information for the components made for its
own Swiss origin house brand watches that are very comparable to the components of the luxury
shop-worn Swiss origin watches that it is importing, CBP believes that Timeworks is in a unique
position to furnish an accurate valuation for the four watch components that Statistical Note 1 of
Chapter 91 of the HTSUS requires to be reported.” Further, CBP was satisfied that the watch
components for Timeworks in-house brand watches were basically comparable to the
components used in the other brands of Swiss watches it was importing. As a result, for the
shop-worn watches, CBP permitted Timeworks to apply the cost information obtained from its
manufacturer-produced watches to calculate the value of the individual components of the shop-
worn watches, subtracting the component costs of the case, band/bracelet, and battery from the
total cost of the watch to obtain the value of the movement. Importantly, however, this decision
did not permit such an approach for the watches produced by manufacturers that Timeworks had
engaged directly; instead, Timeworks had complete insights into the component costs and
apportioned the value of each breakout based on the information obtained from its
manufacturers.
In HQ H305372, dated January 17, 2020, CBP declined to extend the rationale in HQ
H259490 to various models of imported Rolex watches. In HQ H305372, the importer did not
specify whether the subject watches were new, used, or shop-worn, and did not have access to
component data of similar watches as Timeworks did in HQ H259490. Instead, the importer in
HQ H305372 proposed to value the individual breakouts based on the cost of similar watch
components as found in a public internet search (e.g., for costs of identical leather, rubber,
textile, and metal bands). The importer then proposed to use the same component percentage
value allocations regardless of type, value, or classification of the entered watches. CBP
declined to approve this methodology, distinguishing the importer’s approach from HQ H259490
on the basis that the importer did not have the same insight into specific component costs via the
separate purchase of manufacturer-produced watches as Timeworks did. In addition, CBP noted
that, in that matter, it would not make sense to apportion the entire cost of intellectual property to
the movement:
A search of the United States Patent and Trademark website reveals that patents are
assigned to Rolex for components of watch straps and watch bracelets, and for watch
cases, in addition to patents which are attributable to watch movements. Thus, in this
case, it is clearly erroneous to allocate all of the intellectual property value of the watches
to the movement components. Further, the labor for encasing the movement into the
watch case should not be wholly attributed to the movement. See S.H. Pomerance Co.,
21 Cust. Ct. 334 (1948) wherein the court upheld the decision of the appraiser in
including part of the “casing-up expenses,” that is, “the time and labor expended on the
watch cases and watch movements . . . in combining them to form watches, . . .” in the
value of the cases, as well as the value of the movements.
7
Taken together, HQ H259490 and HQ H305372 demonstrate that it is only in a narrow
set of circumstances that CBP will permit importers to calculate the value of a watch’s
movement by subtracting the material and component costs for the non-movement components
from the watch’s total value. As with HQ H259490, such a method may be appropriate when an
importer of used watches for which it has no component-level cost information has specific,
component-level cost data for similar watches that it sources from contract or third-party
manufacturers. In contrast, CBP has not approved such an approach when an importer has
specific, component-level data for the imported watches (e.g., the manufacturer-sourced watches
in HQ H259490) or when the importer cannot access specific, comparable values. In addition, as
in H305372, an importer may not apportion the entire profit, labor, or intellectual property costs
associated with a watch to the movement in instances where it is clear such costs are not entirely
attributable to the movement. See HQ H305372 (although in HQ H259490, CBP accepted
Timeworks contention that the majority of the value contained in a brand name of a watch can
generally be attributed to the movement, it did not address whether all intellectual property value
should be attributed to the movement.) Nevertheless, due to the complexity of a watch’s
movement, CBP has recognized that a majority of labor, overhead, and profit costs is likely to be
allocated to the movement. See id. CBP does not require that a majority of labor, overhead, and
profit expenses be allocated to the movement, however.
In the present matter, we determine that HQ H259490 is not applicable. First, the Self-
Sourced Watches, for which the requestor has “complete visibility into all component parts costs
and assembly costs,” are similar to the manufacturer-sourced watches in HQ H259490. In
relevant part, the manufacturer-sourced watches in HQ H259490 were produced in relation to
Timeworks’ own in-house brands and for which the company had direct contact with its
manufacturers and could “obtain the invoices showing the actual cost of each of the four watch
components.” Similar to HQ H259490, for its Self-Sourced Watches the requestor has complete
visibility into the component and manufacturing costs for all breakouts, including the movement,
and therefore does not need to subtract the values of the non-movement components to calculate
the value of the movement. Second, for the Third-Party Sourced Watches, we note that as in HQ
H305372 and S.H. Pomerance Co., 21 Cust. Ct. 334 (1948), it would be clearly erroneous to
allocate the entire value of the watches’ intellectual property, labor, and profit costs to the value
of the movement. Specifically, in a follow-up submission, the requestor acknowledged (and
CBP confirmed in an internet search) that certain Third-Party Sourced watches contain fashion-
brand marks or logos on non-movement components, including the strap/band and case. In
addition, the requestor also confirmed in a follow-up communication that there are labor costs
associated with the casing and attachment of the strap/band for the subject watches. Because the
importer has complete insight into the component costs of its Self-Sourced Watches and because
it is manifestly clear that not all intellectual property, labor, overhead, and profit costs associated
with the Third-Party Sourced Watches are attributable to the movement, we determine that HQ
H259490 is inapplicable to the present matter.
As outlined in the FACTS section above, should CBP find HQ H259490 inapplicable, the
requestor has suggested an alternative allocation methodology for both its Self-Sourced and
8
Third-Party Sourced Watches. For the Self-Sourced watches, the requestor proposes a
methodology in which the intangible costs are broken into two separate categories, assembly
costs and overhead and profit costs, and apportioned separately. The requestor proposes to
apportion assembly costs for all Self-Sourced Watches as follows: 83% to the movement, 14%
to the case, and 3% to the strap/band. And for overhead and profit expenses, the requestor
proposes to apportion 60% to the movement, 20% to the case, and 20% to the strap/band. For
Third-Party Sourced watches, the requestor states that the proposed allocation will be based upon
the weighted average allocation percentages for similarly classified Self-Sourced Watches.
The requestor’s proposed method of allocation is not supported by the background
documentation. First, the requestor’s proposed weighted-average allocation of the costs
associated with assembly operations is based on a subjective assessment of the relative
complexity of various manufacturing steps multiplied by the time taken to accomplish each
operation. For instance, the analysis provided by the Third-Party Assembler states that the
complexity associated with the mounting of hands onto a watch requires a high level of
“necessary skills” while the performance of a “time accuracy check” involves a low amount of
skills. However, the documentation does not state how such assessments were made or what
criteria were used. In addition, although the requestor has confirmed that it has insight into all
costs associated with its Self-Sourced Watches, it proposes to use a fixed formula to allocate
intangible costs based on data provided by only one of its suppliers.
Second, the requestor’s proposed allocation of overhead and profit is also not
substantiated by the provided documentation. Specifically, the requestor generally proposes to
allocate the costs associated with overhead and profit equally to what it describes as five
“separately purchased” components, which results in the following allocations: 60% to the
movement (20% each for the movement module, dial, and hands), 20% to the case, and 20% to
the strap/band. Once again, however, the underlying documentation does not provide any
indication why such costs should be allocated evenly between these components. Indeed, the
exemplary documentation indicates that the component material costs do not reflect this
allocation. For instance, for one exemplary SKU related to the [ ], the
requestor’s supplementary documentation indicates that a minority of the component material
cost is associated with the movement whereas the watch’s bracelet is the single most valuable
component [(i.e., CHF 25.65 for the movement module, dial, and hands out of a total material
cost of CHF 83.60)]. In fact, in both sample watch SKUs provided by the requestor, the
components associated with the movement represent less than half the total material cost of the
watches. In addition, for the same reasons, we determine that the proposed cost allocations
proposed for the Self-Sourced Watches cannot be cross-applied to the Third-Party Sourced
Watches.
Instead, we suggest that the valuation for intangible costs associated with the value of
each watch (e.g., overhead, profit, and intellectual property) be apportioned in the same ratio as
the material costs associated with each statistical breakout. For instance, if 65% of the material
value is attributable to the movement, 15% to the case, 15% to the strap/band, and 5% to the
battery, then these same percentages should be used in apportioning the remaining costs (e.g.,
9
production, profit, intellectual property). As outlined in the FACTS above, such a method of
valuation is possible based on the information available to the requestor, who has confirmed that,
due to recent advances in its internal recordkeeping capacity, the requestor has sufficient
information related to the production of its Self-Sourced Watches to identify the material costs
associated with each statistical breakout. Based on this production information, the requestor’s
knowledge of the watch industry, and access to specifications forms data, the requestor states
that it is also able to estimate the material costs associated with its Third-Party Sourced watches.
HOLDING:
Based on the information provided, the method proposed by the requestor to appraise the
imported Self-Sourced and Third-Party Sourced Watches and the four statistical breakouts does
not satisfy the requirements of Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91, HTSUS.
Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the
assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and
incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and
complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by [CBP] field office to the
transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts incorporated
in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual transaction,
and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.”
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this
merchandise is entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be
brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
10