C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER I—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 152—CLASSIFICATION AND APPRAISEMENT OF MERCHANDISE › Subpart E—Valuation of Merchandise

19 C.F.R. § 152.101

Basis of appraisement

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Effective date. The value for appraisement of merchandise exported to the United States on or after July 1, 1980, or, for articles classified under subheading 6401.10.00 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), on or after July 1, 1981, will be determined in accordance with section 402, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401a), as amended by section 201, Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

(b) Methods. Imported merchandise will be appraised on the basis, and in the order, of the following:

(1) The transaction value provided for in § 152.103;

(2) The transaction value of identical merchandise provided for in § 152.104, if the transaction value cannot be determined, or can be determined but cannot be used because of the limitations provided for in § 152.103(j);

(3) The transaction value of similar merchandise provided for in § 152.104, if the transaction value of identical merchandise cannot be determined;

(4) The deductive value provided for in § 152.105, if the transaction value of similar merchandise cannot be determined;

(5) The computed value provided for in § 152.106, if the deductive value cannot be determined; or

(6) The value provided for in § 152.107, if the computed value cannot be determined.

(c) Importer's option. The importer may request the application of the computed value method before the deductive value method. The request must be made at the time the entry summary for the merchandise is filed with CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically (see § 141.0a(b) of this chapter). If the importer makes the request, but the value of the imported merchandise cannot be determined using the computed value method, the merchandise will be appraised using the deductive value method if it is possible to do so. If the deductive value cannot be determined, the appraised value will be determined as provided for in § 152.107.

(d) Explanation to importer. Upon receipt of a written request from the importer within 90 days after liquidation, the Center director shall provide a reasonable and concise written explanation of how the value of the imported merchandise was determined. The explanation will apply only to the imported merchandise being appraised and will not serve as authority with respect to the valuation of importations of any other merchandise at the same or a different port of entry. This procedure is for informational purposes only, and will not affect or replace the protest or administrative ruling procedures contained in parts 174 and 177, respectively, of this chapter, or any other Customs procedures. Under this procedure, Customs will not be required to release any information not otherwise subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or any other statute (see part 103 of this chapter).

[T.D. 81-7, 46 FR 2600, Jan. 12, 1981, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51270, Dec. 21, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: United States v. Trek Leather, Inc., 767 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Trek Leather, Inc., 767 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “§ 1401a(a)(l), (b)(1), (e)(1); 19 C.F.R. §§ 152.101 (b)(1), 152.103(a), (b), (d); see generally 19 U.”
Peerless Clothing Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “2d 637 (2000); 19 C.F.R. § 152.101 (b). See also H.R.Rep.”
Heng Ngai Jewelry, Inc. v. United States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “§ 1401a(l); 19 C.F.R. § 152.101 (1994). Related party transactions, such as the ones at issue here, are addressed in § 1401a(b)(2) and are acceptable only if the price is not affected by the relationship between the parties, or if the transaction value closely approximates that…”
Harak v. United States, 2006 CIT 106 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 10× “Question 36 According to Defendant, Question 36 was designed to examine knowledge of the hierarchy of the methods for appraisement of imported merchandise as set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 152.101 (b). 18 Def.’s Br. 18.”
O'Quinn v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 1401a(l); 19 C.F.R. § 152.101 (b). 4 “Transaction value” is defined as the “price actually paid or payable” by the buyer.”
O'Quinn v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 1401a(l); 19 C.F.R. § 152.101 (b). 4 “Transaction value” is defined as the “price actually paid or payable” by the buyer.”
Four Seasons Produce, Inc. v. United States, 2001 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). “§§ 1401a, 1500 (1994); 19 C.F.R. §§ 152.101 (b), 152.104,174 (1992), (1993), with 19 C.”
United States v. Outboard Marine Corp., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 809 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “19C.F.R. § 152.101,in turn, delineates ahierarchy of appraisal methodologies, which parallels the appraisal methodologies listed in 19 U.”
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.