(a) “Produced in the beneficiary developing country” defined. For purposes of §§ 10.171 through 10.178, the words “produced in the beneficiary developing country” refer to the constituent materials of which the eligible article is composed which are either:
(1) Wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the beneficiary developing country; or
(2) Substantially transformed in the beneficiary developing country into a new and different article of commerce.
(b) Questionable origin. When the origin of an article either is not ascertainable or not satisfactorily demonstrated to the Center director, the article shall not be considered to have been produced in the beneficiary developing country.
(c) Determination of cost or value of materials produced in the beneficiary developing country. (1) The cost or value of materials produced in the beneficiary developing country includes:
(i) The manufacturer's actual cost for the materials;
(ii) When not included in the manufacturer's actual cost for the materials, the freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the materials to the manufacturer's plant;
(iii) The actual cost of waste or spoilage (material list), less the value of recoverable scrap; and
(iv) Taxes and/or duties imposed on the materials by the beneficiary developing country, or an association of countries treated as one country, provided they are not remitted upon exportation.
(2) Where the material is provided to the manufacturer without charge, or at less than fair market value, its cost or value shall be determined by computing the sum of:
(i) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, manufacture or assembly of the material, including general expenses;
(ii) An amount for profit; and
(iii) Freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the materials to the manufacturer's plant.
If the pertinent information needed to compute the cost or value of the materials is not available, the appraising officer may ascertain or estimate the value thereof using all reasonable ways and means at his disposal.
[T.D. 76-2, 40 FR 60049, Dec. 31, 1975, as amended by T.D. 86-118, 51 FR 22515, June 20, 1986]
Notes of Decisions
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 151 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
· cites it 4× “” Referencing 19 CFR 10.177(a), 2 which limits inclusion in the 35 percent of appraised value (not “value added”) figure to, among other things, “material” which was either wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the BDC or substantially transformed in the BDC into a new…”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 1083 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
· cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a)(2) (1983). Whether or not the required substantial transformation took place is therefore the issue before this court.”
Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States, 43 F.4th 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
· cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a)(2). In Torrington, we interpreted the statute and regula- tion to require a “dual transformation.”
Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. The United States, 870 F.2d 627 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a). Judge Aquilino correctly observed in the trial court opinion that the cited regulation “gives meaning to factor (A) of that [sic] section 2463(b)(2), and not to factor (B), which is the one relied on by plaintiff.”
Uniden Am. Corp. v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
· cites it 4× “5 *1097 Customs’ argument is that the “product of’ test is governed by 19 C.F.R. § 10.177 , which, in relevant part, provides: § 10.”
Nat'l Juice Prods. Ass'n v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
“19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a)(2) (1985). The drawback test states that for a manufacture to occur “[t]here must be a transformation; a new and different article must emerge, ‘having a distinctive name, character, or use.”
Azteca Milling Co. v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 949 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
· cites it 2× “§ 2463 (b)(2), the Customs Service promulgated 19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a) which provides in part: (a) “Produced in the beneficiary developing country” defined.”
SunEdison, Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
“2d 778 (CCPA 1982), in which the court reviewed Customs’ interpretation of 19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a) (1982), relating to country-of-origin determinations for purposes of the U.”
Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States, 2017 CIT 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
“The relevant regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 10.177 (a), provided, then as now, as follows: "Produced in the beneficiaiy developing country" defined.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 10.177(a) — 2 cases
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 151 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
“” Referencing 19 CFR 10.177(a), 2 which limits inclusion in the 35 percent of appraised value (not “value added”) figure to, among other things, “material” which was either wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the BDC or substantially transformed in the BDC into a new…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 10.177(a)(2) — 2 cases
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 151 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
“” Referencing 19 CFR 10.177(a), 2 which limits inclusion in the 35 percent of appraised value (not “value added”) figure to, among other things, “material” which was either wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the BDC or substantially transformed in the BDC into a new…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.