(a) [Reserved]
(b) Classification and rate of duty. The importer or customs broker must include on the invoice or with the invoice data the appropriate subheading under the provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202) and the rate of duty for the merchandise being entered. Except when invoice line data are linked to an entry summary line and transmitted to CBP electronically under the provisions of part 143, that information must be noted by the importer or customs broker in the left-hand portion of the invoice, next to the articles to which they apply.
(c) Value. The importer must show in clear detail on the invoice or on an attached statement the computation of all deductions from total invoice value, such as nondutiable charges, and all additions to invoice value which have been made to arrive at the aggregate entered value. In addition, the entered unit value for each article on the invoice must be shown where it is different from the invoiced unit value.
(d) Importer's notations in blue or black ink. Except when invoice line data are linked to an entry summary line and transmitted to CBP electronically under the provisions of part 143, all notations made on the invoice by the importer or customs broker must be in blue or black ink.
[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17447, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51262, Dec. 21, 1988; T.D. 99-64, 64 FR 43266, Aug. 10, 1999; CBP Dec. 09-47, 74 FR 69019, Dec. 30, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case:
United States v. Santos, 2012 CIT 157 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
United States v. Santos, 2012 CIT 157 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
· cites it 3× “goods returned, in violation of 19 C.F.R. §§ 141.90 , 142.6, and 152.11. Second, Customs alleges that Santos failed to exercise due diligence.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 729 F. Supp. 1371 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
· cites it 2× “More specifically, plaintiff challenges the administration and enforcement of Customs regulations 19 C.F.R. § 141.90 , § 141.103, § 141.64 and § 152.”
Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 869 F. Supp. 959 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
“19 C.F.R. § 141.90 (a) (1994). The district director is responsible for determining that the merchandise is classified in accordance with the HTSUS, as interpreted by administrative and judicial rulings.”
Wolff Shoe Co. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1038 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
“Defendant notes that only the importer or its agents may write in blue on the invoice pursuant to 19C.F.R. § 141.90(d) (1995) and, therefore, the writing indicates that at the time of filing the entry summary, Wolff “asserted” that the duties included 2.”
DMV USA, Inc. v. United States, 2001 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
“19 C.F.R. § 141.90 (b) (1997). Moreover, Customs has stated that it bases its determination of whether merchandise is to be accorded quota-class *978 priority and status upon the date and time an entry summary is presented in proper form.”
United States v. Farhan Khan, 2017 CIT 85 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 19 C.F.R. § 141.90 (b) (2012). 12 Therefore, the classification of the entry under an incorrect subheading of the HTSUS constitutes a material false statement.”
United States v. Santos, 2013 CIT 154 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
· cites it 3× “7 The 2008 version of 19 C.F.R. § 141.90 referenced only importers, not customs brokers.”
Sunshine Int'l Trading, Inc. v. United States, 2013 CIT 25 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
· cites it 2× “3 19 C.F.R. § 141.90 requires that an importer include “the appropriate subheading under the provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States [“HTSUS”] .”
United States v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 2023 CIT 25 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
“§ 1484 (a)(1)(B); see also 19 C.F.R. § 141.90 (b) (requiring an importer to report “the appropriate sub- heading under the provisions of the [HTSUS] and the rate of duty for the merchandise being entered”).”
— 19 C.F.R. § 141.90(d) — 1 case
Wolff Shoe Co. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1038 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
“Defendant notes that only the importer or its agents may write in blue on the invoice pursuant to 19C.F.R. § 141.90(d) (1995) and, therefore, the writing indicates that at the time of filing the entry summary, Wolff “asserted” that the duties included 2.”
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.