RE: Time of entry pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68; establishing the date of actual vessel arrival.

HQ H338966 July 24, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H338966 CC CATEGORY: Entry Center Director Agriculture and Prepared Foods Center of Excellence and Expertise 6601 NW 25th St. Miami, FL 33122 RE: Time of entry pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68; establishing the date of actual vessel arrival. Dear Center Director: This is in reference to your request for internal advice, dated May 12, 2022, regarding the legal date of entry for two entries of raw honey filed by Export Packers Company Limited (Export Packers): entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4. Specifically, you inquire whether these entries occurred prior to the effective date of an antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair value for raw honey from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) under case number A-552-833. We have considered the points raised by your office and Export Packers. Our response follows. FACTS: Export Packers placed orders for raw honey with Hanoi Honeybee Joint Stock Company (Hanoi Honeybee) in Vietnam. The honey was loaded aboard the Wan Hai Lines vessel Brighton (Brighton) at the port of Tan Cang for transport to United States - the Pacific Container Terminal at the Port of Long Beach, California. According to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) system of record, the timeline of events is as follows. Export Packers filed the entry documentation, CBP Form 3461, for entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4 for the raw honey on October 25, 2021. The entries were accepted in ACE, and initially released, on the same day. On both entry documents provided by Export Packers, the date of arrival for the merchandise is listed as October 20, 2021. However, the ACE Entry Summary system identifies the estimated arrival date for both entries as October 23, 2021. Export Packers filed both entries
as a “type 01,” applicable to formally entered goods which are not subject to antidumping or countervailing duties. Neither of the entry documents list an elected date of entry. On November 4, 2021, Export Packers filed the entry summary documentation, CBP Form 7501, for both entries — as indicated by the entry summary date assigned in ACE. On November 19, 2021, CBP updated the date of cargo release to the same day for both entries. On November 23, 2021, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value for raw honey imported from Vietnam under case number A-552-833. See Raw Honey From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 86 Fed. Reg. 66526 (Nov. 23, 2021). Commerce then instructed CBP to suspend liquidation of imports of raw honey from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 23, 2021. See Commerce Message No. 1334408 (Nov. 30, 2021). Additionally, Commerce instructed CBP to collect cash deposits at a country-wide rate of 412.49% unless a listed exporter/producer combination rate was applicable. Id. Hanoi Honeybee was not included in Commerce’s list of exporter/producer combinations. According to the ACE Cargo Release system, the date of actual arrival for the Brighton at the Port of Long Beach was December 24, 2021. Accordingly, CBP again updated the date of cargo release for both entries. The ACE Entry Summary system automatically assigned the new date of release, December 24, 2021, as the new date of entry. The bill of lading numbers for each shipment of raw honey in the ACE Cargo Release system, identifying the date of actual arrival, match with the bill of lading numbers listed by Export Packers for each entry. Additionally, the quantity of merchandise for each shipment matches with the quantity listed on the entry documentation. Further, our office contacted CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) to confirm the date of vessel arrival recorded in ACE. OFO confirmed the vessel arrived at the port on December 24, 2021, and noted that it subsequently departed on December 29, 2021. Specifically, OFO reviewed a map overlay and data appearing in the Automatic Identification System (AIS) used by the U.S. Coast Guard for purposes of tracking vessels that the date of arrival and mooring was December 24, 2021. See Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System, 80 Fed. Reg. 5282 (Jan. 30, 2015). On December 29, 2021, CBP rejected both entry summaries in ACE on the grounds that “[h]oney from Vietnam is now subject to ADD case A552833.” CBP instructed Export Packers to “correct entry type to ‘03’,” applicable to formally entered goods which are subject to antidumping or countervailing duties. On January 13, 2022, Export Packers complied with CBP’s instructions and resubmitted both entry summaries. CBP extended liquidation of both entries on the same day, to seek “further direction from HQ regarding the entry date and applicability of ADD case for honey from VN.” Concurrently, also on January 13, 2022, Commerce published a preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances. See Raw Honey From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 87 Fed. Reg. 2127 (Jan. 13, 2022). Commerce then instructed CBP to suspend liquidation for all entries of raw honey that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 25, 2021. Commerce Message No. 2019404 (Jan. 19, 2022). The message underscored that the August 25, 2
2021, new date for suspension of liquidation preceded the prior November 23, 2021, date of suspension by 90 days. Id. On April 14, 2022, Commerce published its final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value and final affirmative determination of critical circumstances. See Raw Honey From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 87 Fed. Reg. 22184 (April 14, 2022). Commerce reiterated its instruction to suspend liquidation for shipments entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 25, 2021. Commerce Message No. 2112403 (Apr. 22, 2022). On May 12, 2022, the Agriculture and Prepared Foods Center of Excellence and Expertise (Center) forwarded the present request for internal advice to our office filed by Export Packers. In its request, Export Packers asserts that the date of entry for both of the entries at issue occurred prior to Commerce’s preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value on November 23, 2021. Export Packers thus concludes that the entries are not subject to antidumping duties under case number A-552-833. Export Packers explains that although “[d]ue to port congestion, the Brighton remained at the Port of Long Beach without being able to unload its cargo,” the Brighton’s date of actual arrival within port limits was October 21, 2021. Export Packers states that “the Brighton was in the vicinity of the Port of Long Beach and that on November 21, 2021[,] the vessel was anchored within approximately one mile from an anchorage designated within the Port of Long Beach,” and was finally able to reach a berth on December 28, 2021. In support of its statement, Export Packers provided various “screenshots from the website www.marintraffic.com” and cargo tracking information apparently received from the freight forwarder. Export Packers argues that because “the vessel was within Long Beach Port limits before November 23, 2021[,] and likely remained within the port limits until unlading,” and the merchandise was initially released by CBP prior to November 23, 2021, the legal date of entry pursuant to 19 CFR § 141.68 necessarily occurred prior to the effective date of Commerce’s preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. In support of its argument, Export Packers cites to Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 116429, dated June 29, 2005, which states that the time of entry is deemed to occur at “the moment when [merchandise] physically arrives within . . . port limits.” Export Packers further argues that CBP Regulations “do not require that the vessel has berthed or that the vessel has transmitted an arrival notice” in order to establish the date of arrival for entry purposes. Conversely, your office maintains that the final date of cargo release in ACE, occurring on December 24, 2021, is controlling to establish the legal date of entry. Your offices states that “[a] release cannot occur before the shipment arrives and the entry is usually the date the goods are released (note 19 CFR 141.68).” After your office submitted the present request for internal advice, on June 10, 2022, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. Raw Honey From Argentina, Brazil, India, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 87 Fed. Reg. 35501 (June 10, 2022) (“ADD Order”). Within the ADD Order, Commerce reiterated that due to a critical circumstances determination for raw honey from Vietnam, entries “on or after August 25, 2021, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Vietnam 3
Preliminary Determination” would be subject to antidumping duties. Id. at 35502. Commerce instructed CBP to continue suspending liquidation of such entries and noted that its “instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.” Id. On December 24, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a statutory injunction to enjoin liquidation of entries during “the period 08/25/2021 through 11/22/2021” by certain listed entities. Commerce Message No. 5010412 (Jan. 10, 2025) (referencing court no. 22-00188). Hanoi Honeybee was included in the list of entities. Commerce Message No. 5140403 (May 20, 2025). On September 9, 2025, the CIT amended this statutory injunction to include additional entities. Commerce Message No. 5274404 (Oct. 1, 2025) (referencing court no. 22-00188). Commerce clarified to CBP that this amended injunction still enjoins liquidation of entries “for the period 08/25/2021 through 11/22/2021” by Hanoi Honeybee. Id. Subsequently, on June 5, 2025, the CIT issued another statutory injunction, enjoining liquidation of entries subject to the antidumping order on raw honey from Vietnam. See Commerce Message 5167403 (June 16, 2025) (referencing court no. 25-00085). Afterwards, Commerce instructed CBP to continue suspending liquidation of entries during the period from August 25, 2021, through May 31, 2023, including entries exported by Hanoi Honeybee Joint Stock. Id. As of the date of this response, Commerce has not yet issued liquidation instructions for raw honey exported by Hanoi Honeybee that was entered between August 25, 2021, and May 31, 2023. ISSUE: What is the legal date of entry for entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4? LAW AND ANALYSIS: As an initial matter, we note that our decision is limited to the time of entry for entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4. We do not address the applicability of the ADD Order in light of the ongoing litigation concerning raw honey exported by Hanoi Honeybee that was entered for consumption between August 25, 2021, and May 31, 2023. We further note that once these entries have liquidated a protest may be filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2) to contest the “rate and amount of duties chargeable” — to include any antidumping duties that may be assessed. We now turn to the question at hand. The raw honey entered by Export Packers arrived within the customs territory of the United States by vessel. For merchandise imported by vessel, the date of importation is “the date on which the vessel arrives within the limits of a port in the United States with intent then and there to unlade such merchandise.” 19 C.F.R. § 101.1. An entry must be filed within 15 days of landing from a vessel but may be filed in advance of arrival. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 142.2(a)-(b). An importer of record can elect to file the entry documentation (CBP Form 3461) without an entry summary (CBP Form 7501), or to file an entry summary that serves as both entry and entry summary. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 142.2(b); 141.68(a)-(b). The time of entry for merchandise entered for consumption is established in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 141.68. When the importer files the entry documentation separately from an entry summary, and does not elect an entry date as specified in 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(a)(2)-(3), the 4
time of entry will be “[t]he time the appropriate CBP officer authorizes the release of the merchandise or any part of the merchandise covered by the entry documentation.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(a)(1). However, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e), “[m]erchandise will not be authorized for release, nor will an entry or an entry summary be considered filed or presented, until the merchandise has arrived within the port limits with the intent to unlade.” Here, Export Packers filed the entry documentation without an entry summary and did not elect an entry date at the time of filing as specified in 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(a)(2)-(3). Therefore, 19 C.F.R. §§ 141.68(a)(1) and 141.68(e) govern the legal date of entry for entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4. The time of entry will thus be the date on which CBP finally authorized release so long as the merchandise had arrived within port limits with intent to unlade by that date. In general, “‘merchandise is not imported until it arrives at the port of unlading from the importing vessel.’” C.S.D 82-92 (Jan. 12, 1982) (quoting T.D. 54235 (Oct. 31, 1956)). In fact, “[i]f this were not the case, the manifesting of merchandise as for discharge at a certain port and the filing at that port of entry for consumption therefore would enable a consignee to obtain a rate of duty then in effect in the absence of any real intent to discharge at that port and therefore prior to importation.” Id. Therefore, the actual arrival of the merchandise within port limits and with intent to unlade is key to establishing the time of entry. CBP has previously addressed the date of entry constraints imposed by 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e). In HQ H121420, dated May 17, 2011, CBP determined the time of entry of for automobile tires imported from the People’s Republic of China. In that case, the importer argued that the legal date of entry was September 25, 2009, because this was the elected date of entry on the entry documentation and the release date that CBP initially transmitted via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI). The port instead determined that the date of entry occurred subsequently because the automobile tires had not yet arrived within port limits by September 25, 2009. The Automated Commercial System (ACS), ACE’s predecessor, recorded the date of arrival for the vessel transporting the tires as October 8, 2009. On protest, CBP Headquarters agreed with the port, explaining that “the ‘release of merchandise by a CBP officer cannot take place, of course, before the merchandise has arrived at the port’” due to the requirement in 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e) “that the merchandise must first arrive within the port limits.” Id. (quoting HQ 116429 (June 29, 2005)). Accordingly, the time of entry could not be earlier than October 8, 2009 — the actual arrival date of the vessel within the port limits. CBP further explained that the cargo release date in ABI is “simply an estimate and is dependent on whether the cargo has actually arrived” and that “[t]he cargo cannot be released before it physically arrives at the port.” Id. More recently, in HQ H306804, dated September 29, 2023, CBP addressed the constraints imposed by 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e) in the context of establishing the date of actual arrival pursuant to the ACE Cargo Release system. There, the importer argued that the legal date of entry of the merchandise corresponded to the date the entry summary was filed in proper form and with estimated duties attached pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(b). According to the ACE Cargo Release system, although the entry filing date and initial cargo release date was July 25, 2018, the date of actual arrival for the vessel was July 27, 2018. ACE also recorded two subsequent entry summary dates, on August 7 and 25, 2018, and a second cargo release date on August 25, 2018. The ACE Cargo Release system indicated that two bills of lading corresponded to the protested entry, and for both bills the manifest information provided by the freight 5
forwarder stated that the vessel actually arrived on July 27, 2018. CBP determined that July 27, 2018, was the legal date of entry pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e) because it was the date on which the vessel actually arrived after the entry summary documentation, which also served as the entry documentation, had been filed. CBP explained that “the entry date cannot precede the arrival date of the merchandise within port limits with the intent to unlade pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e).” Id. CBP also noted that “it is of no consequence that ACE also lists two subsequent entry dates . . . because there was an earlier entry summary filing in proper form and the merchandise arrived within the port limits on July 27, 2018.” Id. Consequently, although 19 C.F.R. § 141.68 enables an importer of record to elect an entry date through specific processes, all such elections are subject to the actual arrival of the merchandise within port limits with intent to unlade. 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e). Whenever the date of arrival occurs after an otherwise applicable entry filing date, the latter date of arrival is controlling because “[m]erchandise will not be authorized for release, nor will an entry . . . be considered filed . . . until the merchandise has arrived.” Id. Significantly, CBP concluded the date of actual arrival for a vessel can be “established by ACE and the supporting documentation” such as bills of lading or other manifest documentation evidencing arrival. Id. Here, as in HQ H121420 and HQ H306804, the date of estimated arrival for the vessel predated the date of actual arrival recorded in CBP’s system of record, ACS or ACE. Export Packers asserts that “the vessel was within Long Beach Port limits before November 23, 2021” even though the vessel was not able to reach a berth until December 28, 2021, and the official recorded date of actual arrival in ACE is December 24, 2021. Export Packers argues that so long as the Brighton was within the geographical limits of the port, the requirements under § 141.68(e), i.e., that the merchandise has arrived within the port limits with the intent to unlade, were satisfied irrespective of when the vessel reached anchor, a berth, or when an arrival notice was transmitted to CBP. Export Packers relies on HQ 116429 in support of its position. There, the importer sought a ruling concerning the time of entry of natural gas under § 141.68. Four vessels would transport the natural gas to a “buoy apparatus” located at a deep-water port, and from there, the natural gas would be transported via an undersea pipeline system to a port. CBP determined that arrival occurred when the natural gas from the pipelines made landfall within port limits, such that “the time of entry of natural gas at issue [could] be deemed as the moment when it physically arrive[d] within the Morgan City CBP port limits.” Export Packer’s reliance on HQ 116429 is suspect because here, unlike in HQ 116429, the merchandise is not imported by pipeline; rather the raw honey at issue is imported into the United States via vessel. CBP’s decision in HQ 116429 concerning how the date of actual arrival is established for merchandise imported by pipeline does not inform our decision as to how the date of actual arrival is established for merchandise imported by vessel. Further, contrary to Export Packers’s assertion that CBP Regulations “do not require that the vessel has berthed or that the vessel has transmitted an arrival notice”, vessel arrival is required to be reported to CBP. “Upon arrival in any port of place within the U.S. . . . the master of the vessel must immediately report that arrival to the nearest CBP facility or other location designated by the port director” pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 4.2(a). Thus, even if not for reported for entry purposes, such reporting is required by CBP Regulations and is recorded in ACE. As detailed in HQ H121420 and HQ H306804, for merchandise imported by vessel, CBP looks to the date of actual arrival in ACE, specifically the ACE Cargo Release system, and any 6
supporting information such as bills of lading or manifest information. See also HQ H333257 (May 6, 2025); HQ H336408 (Jan. 25, 2024). Due to ACE functioning as “CBP’s official system of record” for purposes of documenting arrival and release, the information in ACE input by CBP is accorded a rebuttable presumption of correctness arising from the presumption of regularity that attaches to CBP’s recordkeeping. See Peg Bandage v. United States, 17 C.I.T. 1337, 1340-1341 (1993) (“the government is accorded a presumption of regularity that attaches to Customs’ recordkeeping”); Stemcor USA, Inc. v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 1373, 1380 (2002) (finding that an importer was “unable to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to Customs’ decisions”). In HQ H306804, in addition to looking to the date of vessel arrival recorded in the ACE Cargo Release system, CBP also reviewed the bills of lading and the manifest information provided by the freight forwarder to corroborate the date appearing in ACE. Here, the bill of lading numbers for each shipment of raw honey in ACE, identifying the date of actual arrival, match with the bill of lading numbers listed by Export Packers for each entry. And the quantity of merchandise for each shipment also matches the quantity listed on the entry documentation. Therefore, the bills of lading match exactly with the bills of lading listed as part of the Brighton’s arrival record in the ACE Cargo Release system. Additionally, the data in AIS — the system by the U.S. Coast Guard to track vessels — corroborates the date of arrival recorded in the ACE Cargo Release system. AIS records December 24, 2021, as the date of arrival and mooring at the port. Export Packers claims that it can substantiate the Brighton’s geographic presence within port limits through screenshots from the website “www.marintraffic.com” and the cargo tracking information received from its freight forwarder. However, information originating from private and unofficial sources does not overcome the presumption of correctness arising from official documents, such as the bills of lading or manifest data in ACE. In the context of laboratory results, CBP has explained that “[a]lthough an outside report is submitted which differs from the CBP laboratory report, the CBP laboratory . . . cannot be disregarded.” HQ 966945 (Mar. 22, 2005). Additionally, “[c]onflicting results alone . . . are not enough to establish the prima facie case required to rebut CBP’s presumption of correctness.” HQ H233041 (Apr. 1, 2014). In circumstances “where [a] protestant submits an outside report that differs from [a] CBP laboratory report, the CBP laboratory cannot be disregarded and, therefore, takes precedence over the outside report.” Id. The burden is on the importer to disprove CBP’s factual findings by demonstrating that CBP’s lab results are erroneous or obtained through an erroneous testing method. Id. Similarly to the importers in HQ 966945 and HQ H233041, Export Packers submits evidence originating from private and unofficial sources which provide different information from what is recorded in the ACE Cargo Release system but fails to demonstrate that CBP’s official data is inaccurate or unreliable. Unlike in HQ H306804, here the cargo tracking information from the freight forwarder, specifically the “Arrival Notice/Freight Invoice,” provides only an estimated arrival date of October 23, 2021. Further, the attached screenshots from what appears to be a website with the cargo tracking detail and history provide conflicting dates, with October 23, 2021, as the arrival date, and December 26 and 29, 2021, as the dates of discharge. As such, Export Packers’s record provides inconsistent information as to the actual arrival date of the vessel, and thus the information in ACE — which is CBP’s official system of record — cannot be disregarded and takes precedence. In reviewing the totality of the evidence regarding the Brighton’s arrival at the Port of Long Beach, we are unable to conclude that Export 7
Packers has overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the December 24, 2021, date of actual vessel arrival in the ACE Cargo Release system. Now that we have established the date of arrival for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e), we must establish the date of release in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(a)(1). As explained above, in circumstances where the entry documentation is filed separately from the entry summary documentation, and no date of entry is elected, the time of entry will be the date of release so long as the merchandise had arrived within port limits with intent to unlade by that date. 19 C.F.R. §§ 141.68(a)(1); 141.86(e). Initially, the raw honey at issue was released on October 25, 2021; however, CBP subsequently revised the date of release. Once the merchandise actually arrived within the Port of Long Beach with intent to unlade, on December 24, 2021, the ACE Entry Summary system automatically updated the date of release to the same date. This programming reflects the legal requirement that “[m]erchandise will not be authorized for release . . . until the merchandise has arrived.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.68(e). Further, “an initial release in ACE will not serve to establish the actual date on which cargo is released from CBP custody” because a release may be cancelled or reissued. HQ H333257. Here, the date on which the raw honey was ultimately released from CBP custody is December 24, 2021 — the same date that the merchandise actually arrived at the Port of Long Beach. Accordingly, we find that the legal date of entry for entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4 is December 24, 2021. HOLDING: Based on the foregoing, the legal date of entry for entry numbers xxx-xxxx272-6 and xxx-xxxx273-4 is December 24, 2021. You are instructed to provide this decision to the internal advice requester no later than sixty (60) days from the date of the 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 to the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/ which can be found on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.cbp.gov and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Yuliya A. Gulis, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division 8