OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H333257 JHS
Center Director
Industrial and Manufacturing Materials
Center of Excellence and Expertise
Buffalo Field Office
Buffalo, NY 14225
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 270421153931; Tile Traditions, LLC;
Antidumping Duties (A-570-084) for Certain Quartz Products from the People’s Republic
of China
Dear Center Director:
The purpose of this decision is to address the Application for Further Review (AFR) of
protest number 270421153931 filed by Tile Traditions, LLC (Tile Traditions) on March 29, 2021,
regarding the liquidation of entry number xxx-xxxx289-9 with the assessment of antidumping
duties in accordance with case number A-570-084 for certain quartz products from the People’s
Republic of China (China). Our decision is set forth below.
FACTS:
In November of 2018, Tile Traditions imported a single entry, number xxx-xxxx289-9, of
quartz tiles from China. On November 1, 2018, an entry summary (Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) Form 7501), which serves as both the entry and the entry summary was filed
and accepted in CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The cargo was initially
released on the same day.
On November 2, 2018, the release was cancelled due to an agricultural hold that required
an examination of the cargo. On the same day, and subsequently on November 6, 2018, Tile
Traditions filed a paper entry on CBP Form 3461. Tile Traditions did not explain why these
additional entries were filed beyond noting that an entry clerk employed by its customs broker
“was not familiar with all entry procedures.”
The estimated date of arrival for the cargo was November 6, 2018, but it did not actually
arrive at the Port of Los Angeles until November 9, 2018. After the cargo was examined, and the
agricultural hold was lifted, the cargo was released on November 20, 2018. ACE assigned the
cargo release date of November 20, 2018, as the date of entry. Concurrently, on November 20,
2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a preliminary determination of
sales at less than fair value, requiring cash deposits on imported quarts surface products (quartz)
from China in case number A-570-084. See Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 83 Fed. Reg. 58,540.
On April 1, 2019, CBP reviewed entry number xxx-xxxx289-9 and issued a Notice of
Action (CBP Form 29) requiring resubmission of the entry summary to include antidumping and
countervailing duties, as applicable. On April 2, 2019, to comply with the Notice of Action, Tile
Traditions refiled a paper entry summary on CBP Form 7501 that was hand annotated to state
“Revised 7501,” and changed the entry type from 01 to 03. The refiled entry summary indicated
the date of entry was November 20, 2018. The resubmitted entry summary included line items
for antidumping duties owed pursuant to case number A-570-084-555 and countervailing duties
owed pursuant to case number C-570-085-000. Also included was an entry summary dated
November 26, 2018, that was hand annotated to state “Original 7501,” and also indicated the
date of entry was November 20, 2018. On April 3, 2019, the entry summary was rejected. On
April 22, 2019, Tile Traditions appears to have resubmitted the “Revised 7501.”
On July 11, 2019, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order (ADD Order) for quartz
from China entered for consumption on or after November 20, 2018. See Certain Quartz Surface
Products from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 84
Fed. Reg. 33,053. On October 2, 2019, the entry summary refiled by Tile Traditions was
accepted in ACE and the entry was suspended pursuant to Commerce Message No. 8330301, that
had previously been issued on November 26, 2018.
On February 26, 2021, CBP liquidated the entry as subject to antidumping duties owed
pursuant to case number A-570-084-555 and countervailing duties owed pursuant to case number
C-570-085-000. On March 29, 2021, Tiles Traditions filed protest number 270421153931
contesting CBP’s assessment of antidumping duties. Tile Traditions does not dispute CBP’s
assessment of countervailing duties. Tile Traditions argues that entry number xxx-xxxx289-9 is
not subject to the ADD Order because the date of entry was November 1, 2018, and thus
occurred prior to the November 20, 2018, effective date for the ADD Order. Tile Traditions
argues that November 1, 2018, was the date of entry because: “the vessel carrying the goods
entered the port limits of Long Beach on November 1, 2018; the entry data was properly
transmitted to CBP electronically on November 1, 2018; and CBP initially released the goods
was [sic] November 1, 2018.” Tile Traditions stresses that although the cargo was not released by
CBP until November 20, 2018, it is the initial authorized release date for the goods in ACE, on
November 1, 2018, that is controlling.
The protest was denied by the Industrial and Manufacturing Materials Center of
Excellence and Expertise (Center) on March 23, 2023. The Center determined the date of entry
was November 20, 2018, as reflected in ACE, and was thus subject to the ADD Order. The
protest was forwarded to our office for further review on July 21, 2023.
2
ISSUE:
What is the legal date of entry for entry number xxx-xxxx289-9?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
As an initial matter, we find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A), this protest was
timely filed on March 29, 2021, within 180 days after the February 26, 2021, liquidation date for
entry number xxx-xxxx289-9. We also find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), a protestable
issue was raised by challenging CBP’s decision regarding the applicable rate of antidumping
duties. Finally, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b), we find that further review of this protest is
warranted because it involves a question of fact which has not previously been ruled upon,
specifically whether the date of entry occurred prior to the effective date for the ADD Order. We
note that due to Tile Traditions only protesting CBP’s assessment of antidumping duties on entry
number xxx-xxxx289-9, CBP’s assessment of countervailing duties on the entry is final. See 19
U.S.C. § 1514(a) (establishing that any liquidation “shall be final and conclusive” unless
protested); see also Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) H024645 (Dec. 1, 2008).
CBP has a “statutory responsibility to fix the amount of duty owed on imported goods. As
part of that responsibility, C[BP] is both empowered and obligated to determine . . . whether
goods are subject to existing antidumping or countervailing duty orders.” Sunpreme Inc. v.
United States, 946 F.3d 1300, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). As part of fulfilling this
obligation, CBP assumes a ministerial role in liquidating entries subject to instructions received
from Commerce. See Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The instructions relevant to this protest required CBP to assess antidumping duties on
quartz entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse on or after November 20, 2018.
See Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,053 (July 11, 2019).
The time of entry for merchandise entered for consumption is established in accordance
with 19 C.F.R. § 141.68. 19 C.F.R. § 141.68 permits importers to select the date of entry for a
particular shipment. For example, “[w]hen an entry summary serves as both the entry
documentation and entry summary . . . the time of entry will be the time the entry summary is
filed in proper form with estimated duties attached . . . .” 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(b). However, the
ability of importers to select a date of entry is subject to a limitation pertaining to arrival, which
appears in 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e): an entry will not “be considered filed or presented, until the
merchandise has arrived within the port limits with the intent to unlade.”
For entry number xxx-xxxx289-9, the importer filed in ACE an entry summary that
served as both the entry documentation and entry summary on November 1, 2018. ACE reflects
that this entry summary was accepted on November 1, 2018. However, because the date of entry
cannot predate the arrival of the cargo within port limits, the date of entry cannot predate
November 9, 2018, which is the date on which the cargo actually arrived at the Port of Los
Angeles. See 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e); HQ H306804 (Sept. 29, 2023) (“[T]he entry date cannot
predate the actual arrival of the merchandise.”); see also Mussman & Schafer, Inc. v. United
States, 27 Cust. Ct. 180, 185-86 (1951); HQ H121420 (May 17, 2011); HQ 225111 (Oct. 4,
3
1994). Accordingly, we find that the date of entry is November 9, 2018, the date on which the
cargo arrived within port limits with the intent to unlade.
We note that the subsequently filed paper entries and entry summaries, and rejection of
the entry summary on April 3, 2019, do not serve to modify the time of entry as established in
accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 141.68. See HQ 228611 (July 31, 2001) (“Although, Customs later
rejected importer’s 7501 entry summaries, that rejection had no bearing on time of entry.”). We
further note that Tile Traditions’ argument that the date on which entry data is accepted in ACE,
or the date on which cargo is initially released in ACE, is necessarily controlling for purposes of
establishing the date of entry is unsupported by law. It is well established that the date of entry
must be determined in accordance with the provisions of 19 C.F.R. § 141.68. See e.g. 19 C.F.R. §
141.69 (“[t]he rates of duty applicable to merchandise shall be the rates in effect at time of entry,
as specified in § 141.68”); HQ 114067 (Nov. 12, 1997) (“section 141.68 provides the rule for
establishing the time of entry”); HQ H121420 (May 17, 2011) (“[t]he regulations in 19 CFR §
141.68 state that the time of entry may be established in [specified] ways”). Additionally, a cargo
release may be cancelled for purposes of conducting an examination and verifying admissibility,
such that an initial release in ACE will not serve to establish the actual date on which cargo is
released from CBP custody. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 113.62(d) (“[i]f merchandise is released
conditionally from CBP custody to the principal before all required evidence is produced, before
its quantity and value are determined, or before its right of admission into the United States is
determined, the principal agrees to redeliver”); HQ 225111 (Oct. 4, 1994); CBP.gov, ACE Cargo
Release Business Rules and Process Document for Trade (Mar. 17, 2025) (“[a]ll releases are
considered Conditional”). Consequently, Tile Traditions’ argument is contravened by the
provisions of 19 C.F.R. § 141.68, which establishes that November 9, 2018, is the date of entry.
Pursuant to the ADD Order, CBP was instructed to assess antidumping duties on
“unliquidated entries of quartz surface products from China entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after November 20, 2018.” 84 Fed. Reg. 33,054. The
November 9, 2018, date of entry thus predates the November 20, 2018, date which renders
unliquidated entries of quartz tiles subject to antidumping duties. Id. We thus find that entry
number xxx-xxxx289-9 was not subject to the ADD Order.
HOLDING:
Based on the above, we find that the legal date of entry for entry number xxx-xxxx289-9
was November 9, 2018. Accordingly, the entry is not subject to antidumping duties. This protest
should be GRANTED in full.
4
You are instructed to notify the Protestant of this decision no later than 60 days from the
date of this decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations
and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel and the public on the Customs
Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/, or other methods of public
distribution.
Sincerely,
for Yuliya A. Gulis, Director
Commercial & Trade Facilitation Division
5