Ruling of the Week 6: Instruments of International Traffic

I'm enjoying the Ruling of the Week feature. One important benefit of this task is that I get to blog about some aspect of customs law that might not otherwise make it into the Court of International Trade or a Federal Register Notice. This week (really last week, but who's complaining?), the topic is Instruments of International Traffic, which is the subject of  HQ H255763 (Aug. 15, 2014). You should look at the Ruling because Customs and Border Protection included pictures, which are usually helpful.

The law allows importers to designate reusable containers, racks, skids, and similar fixtures as Instruments of International Traffic. The relevant regulation is 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a. The value of making this designation is that IIT's are not subject to duty and exempt from other aspects of the normal entry process. That can be a valuable cost-savings mechanism for frequent and repeated imports. Think about a car company in Detroit that gets the same parts from Windsor, Ontario multiple times a day using the same pallets, racks, and bins. The importer can avoid the cost and compliance effort of entering the pallets, racks, and bins if they are recognized as instruments of international transport and treated accordingly.

The way CBP looks at this, an IIT is something that is "a substantial container or holder." The article must also be capable of repeated use and used in significant numbers in international traffic. This rolls up into HTSUS item 9803.50.00, which provides for duty-free entry for products "of a class specified by the Secretary of the Treasury as instruments of international traffic." IIT's may be imported empty or containing the articles they are intended to transport.

In this ruling, CBP found that the containers were substantial (with a five to seven year service life)and reusable (about 1,500 times per year). Given those facts, the subject containers were found to be IIT's.

The ruling does not go into the details, which are always important. First of all, to do this, the importer has to have a corresponding bond to ensure that customs duties will be paid if the IIT's turn out to be dutiable for some reason. One reason that happens is that the container gets diverted from international traffic to domestic ("point-to-point") use or stays in the U.S. for a year or more. When that happens, the former IIT is subject to entry and duty if applicable. That means a compliant importer will have a process for tracking IIT's and reporting those that go astray. Also, there are specific rules regarding the serializing of containers and exceptions for traffic between the U.S. and Canada and Mexico. So, check the regs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more