Application for further review of Protest No. 1303-91-100361;post importation rebate or decrease in the price actually paid orpayable; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(4)(B)

HQ 545510 January 7, 1994 VAL CO:R:C:V 545510 CRS CATEGORY: Valuation District Director U.S. Customs Service 200 St. Paul Place 28th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 1303-91-100361; post importation rebate or decrease in the price actually paid or payable; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(4)(B) Dear Sir: This is in reply to your memorandum PRO-1-DD:CO:TT:1 TR, dated January 21, 1993, under cover of which you forwarded the above referenced application for further review, filed on behalf of the Exalmet Division of Minerais de Fer U.S. Inc., by John S. Connor, Inc. on November 13, 1991. We regret the delay in responding. FACTS: The instant protest concerns the appraisement of granulated ferrochrome. Protestant maintains that the invoice submitted at the time of entry was provisional and that the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise was in fact lower than that shown on the entry documentation. Consequently, protestant contends that duty was overpaid by the amount of $1,117.86. In support of its claim protestant has submitted a Settlement Report prepared by its Controller that reflects the difference between the price stated on the so-called "provisional" invoice and the alleged "final" price. However, you note that there is nothing to indicate that the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States was other than that shown on the invoice submitted at the time of entry. As a result, it is your position that the "final" price claimed by the protestant represents a rebate effected after the date of importation. ISSUE: The issue presented is whether the protested merchandise was correctly appraised based on the price reflected on the invoice submitted at the time of entry. 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 (TAA; 19 U.S.C. 1401a). The preferred method of appraisement under the TAA is transaction value, defined as "the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States," plus certain additions to the extent applicable. 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1). For the purposes of this ruling we have assumed that transaction value is the appropriate basis of appraisement. Section 402(b)(4) of the TAA provides that any rebate of, or other decrease in, the price actually paid or payable effected after merchandise is imported into the U.S. is to be disregarded in determining transaction value. 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(4)(B). In this instance no documentation has been provided which would support the contention that a rebate of, or other decrease in, the price actually paid or payable by the protestant was effected before the merchandise was imported into the U.S. Accordingly, the decrease in the price alleged by the protestant was properly disregarded in determining the transaction value of the imported merchandise. HOLDING: The protest should be denied in full. A copy of this decision should be sent to the protestant together with the Form 19 Notice of Action. In accordance with section 3A(11)(b), Customs Directive 099 3550-065 dated August 4, 1993, this decision should be mailed to the protestant no later than sixty days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to the mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of this decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS, and to the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis, the Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels. Sincerely, John Durant, Director