Application for further review of Protest No. 3004-98-100109; Merchandise Processing Fee; 19 U.S.C. § 58c; Formal Entry; Informal Entry; 19 CFR § 143.22
Issued February 8, 2000 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Tariff classification
Product description
and issues raised, and our decision follows. FACTS: The subject merchandise, which consists of cosmetics, was entered on September 15, 1997. The value of the entered merchandise was $1052. A formal entry was made, and a merchandise processing fee of $25.00 was paid. According to the broker for the importer, on February 17, 1998, the broker made a request to Customs to refund $23.00, which is the difference between the merchandise processing fee for a formal and an informal entry for the subject merchandise. The basis of the broker’s request was that the subject merchandise was eligible for informal entry and the importer made a mistake of formally entering the goods under entry type 01. According to the broker, on February 18, 1998, Customs denied the refund request, citing 19 CFR § 143.22. The subject merchandise was liquidated on July 31, 1998. The protest was filed on August 11, 1998.
CBP rationale
The statutory basis for the merchandise processing fee is contained in 19 U.S.C. § 58c. For the merchandise processing fee for formal entries, 19 U.S.C. § 58c(a)(9)(a) provides the amount is 0.21 percent ad valorem. 19 CFR § 24.23(b)(1) provides that the minimum merchandise processing fee for a formal entry is $25. For informal entries, the merchandise process fee is $2 for an automated entry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 58c(a)(10). The protestant claims that the subject merchandise should be allowed to be changed to an informal entry, since its value was less than $1200. At the time the merchandise was entered, the informal entry limit was $1200, although we note that limit was subsequently raised to $2000, effective July 2, 1998, by T.D. 98-28. Customs initially denied the refund request based on 19 CFR § 143.22, which provides that the port director may require a formal entry for any merchandise if deemed necessary for import admissibility enforcement purposes, revenue protection, or efficient conduct of Customs business. According to the port, the merchandise was subject to laws administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at the time of entry required the submission of FDA form 701. Because there are laws of another agency involved and possible admissibility concerns, it was proper for the port to require there be a formal entry, pursuant to 19 CFR § 143.22. This conclusion is consistent with Headquarters Ruling (HQ) 545017, dated August 19, 1994, in which goods subject to laws administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were required to be entered formally pursuant to 19 CFR § 143.22. Consequently, the subject entry is properly a formal entry and no refund in the merchandise processing fee is due.
Full text
HQ 114716 February 8, 2000 ENT-1-RR:IT:EC 114716 CC CATEGORY: Entry Area Port Director U.S. Customs Service 9901 Pacific Highway Blaine, WA 98230 RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 3004-98-100109; Merchandise Processing Fee; 19 U.S.C. § 58c; Formal Entry; Informal Entry; 19 CFR § 143.22 Dear Sir: The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the facts and issues raised, and our decision follows. FACTS: The subject merchandise, which consists of cosmetics, was entered on September 15, 1997. The value of the entered merchandise was $1052. A formal entry was made, and a merchandise processing fee of $25.00 was paid. According to the broker for the importer, on February 17, 1998, the broker made a request to Customs to refund $23.00, which is the difference between the merchandise processing fee for a formal and an informal entry for the subject merchandise. The basis of the broker’s request was that the subject merchandise was eligible for informal entry and the importer made a mistake of formally entering the goods under entry type 01. According to the broker, on February 18, 1998, Customs denied the refund request, citing 19 CFR § 143.22. The subject merchandise was liquidated on July 31, 1998. The protest was filed on August 11, 1998. ISSUE: Whether the subject merchandise is eligible for informal entry and a refund in the difference between the merchandise processing fee for a formal and an informal entry. LAW AND ANALYSIS: The statutory basis for the merchandise processing fee is contained in 19 U.S.C. § 58c. For the merchandise processing fee for formal entries, 19 U.S.C. § 58c(a)(9)(a) provides the amount is 0.21 percent ad valorem. 19 CFR § 24.23(b)(1) provides that the minimum merchandise processing fee for a formal entry is $25. For informal entries, the merchandise process fee is $2 for an automated entry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 58c(a)(10). The protestant claims that the subject merchandise should be allowed to be changed to an informal entry, since its value was less than $1200. At the time the merchandise was entered, the informal entry limit was $1200, although we note that limit was subsequently raised to $2000, effective July 2, 1998, by T.D. 98-28. Customs initially denied the refund request based on 19 CFR § 143.22, which provides that the port director may require a formal entry for any merchandise if deemed necessary for import admissibility enforcement purposes, revenue protection, or efficient conduct of Customs business. According to the port, the merchandise was subject to laws administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at the time of entry required the submission of FDA form 701. Because there are laws of another agency involved and possible admissibility concerns, it was proper for the port to require there be a formal entry, pursuant to 19 CFR § 143.22. This conclusion is consistent with Headquarters Ruling (HQ) 545017, dated August 19, 1994, in which goods subject to laws administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were required to be entered formally pursuant to 19 CFR § 143.22. Consequently, the subject entry is properly a formal entry and no refund in the merchandise processing fee is due. HOLDING: Pursuant to 19 CFR § 143.22, the subject entry could be required to be entered formally, and therefore, no refund in the difference between the merchandise processing fee for a formal and an informal entry is due. In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries 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 make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.customs.ustreas.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Jerry Laderberg Chief Entry Procedures and Carriers Branch
Ruling history
More rulings on the same tariff codes
The country of origin of Candesartan Cilexetil and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets USP, in dosage form
Country of Origin; Finished Leather
The country of origin of FK-5-1-12, CAS No. 756-13-8
Country of origin determination for a playmat, storage bin, and swaddling wraps with drawstring bag; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2) and 19 CFR 102.21(c)(4)
Country of origin determination for a furniture moving blanket; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(5)
Country of origin determination for a duvet; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(4); most important assembly or manufacturing process
The country of origin of fiber optic assemblies
The marking and country of origin of scissors.
The country of origin of Butalbital, Acetaminophen and Caffeine Capsules, USP in dosage form
The country of origin determination for an unfinished face mask; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2)
Searching CBP rulings the smart way
TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings, surfaces the ones that actually match your product, and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.
Book a demo →