19 C.F.R. § 158.12

Merchandise partially damaged at time of importation

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

(a) Allowance in value. Merchandise which is subject to ad valorem or compound duties and found by the port director to be partially damaged at the time of importation shall be appraised in its condition as imported, with an allowance made in the value to the extent of the damage. However, no allowance shall be made when forbidden by law or regulation; for example, Chapter 72, Additional U.S. Note 3, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), provides that no allowance or reduction of duties for partial damage or loss in consequence of discoloration or rust occurring before importation shall be made upon iron or steel or upon any article of iron or steel.

(b) No allowance in specific duties. In the case of merchandise subject to specific or compound duties and found to be partially damaged at the time of importation, no allowance may be made in the specific duties or in the weight, quantity, or measure (except that an allowance for any excessive moisture or other impurities may be made in accordance with § 158.13). However, any part of the shipment which is totally worthless and can be segregated from the rest of the shipment may be treated as a nonimportation in accordance with § 158.11.

(Sec. 506, 46 Stat. 732, as amended; 19 U.S.C. 1506) [T.D. 72-258, 37 FR 20171, Sept. 27, 1972, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51270, Dec. 21, 1988]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Saab Cars Usa, Inc. v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 434 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Saab Cars Usa, Inc. v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 434 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “” Saab filed protests with Customs seeking an allowance against import duties for the value of those automobiles pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 , which permits importers to receive such an allowance for “merchandise .”

Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 532 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 14× “VW invokes a Customs regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 , as a cause of action independent from the protest procedures in 19 U.”

Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 17× “SCUSA protested the liquidations, requesting allowances under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 for “damage [or] latent manufacturing defects.”

Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 10× “On a more practical level, Customs cannot now claim that the language of the protests was insufficient to appraise Customs that the claims were sought under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 . The protests in this case contained the same language as the protests in the Samsung case.”

Samsung Elec. Am., Inc. v. United States, 106 F.3d 376 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · cites it 8× “Samsung filed a claim with Customs under what are now 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 and 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(3)(A)(i) for the valuation of the defective merchandise and, consequently, the duties assessed, to be reduced by a reasonable allowance for the diminished value due to the latent…”

Samsung Elec. Am., Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999). · cites it 10× “Samsung alleged that the entered merchandise contained latent defects covered by its consumer warranties, and it sought allowances for the repair costs and losses of unrepairable goods sold at discount during the years of the entries, arguing that these goods were “partially…”

Fabil Mfg. Co. v. United States, 237 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “Authority to reduce the assessed valuation of defective imported merchandise is provided in 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 , which states: Allowance in value.”

Samsung Elec. Am., Inc. v. United States, 35 F. Supp. 2d 942 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 7× “(“Samsung”) challenges defendant the United States Customs Service’s (“Customs”) refusal to grant an allowance in the appraised value of imported electronic equipment under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 . Specifically, Samsung asserts that because the merchandise contained latent defects…”

Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 540 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 7× “In this customs case, we again address issues concerning the allowance for merchandise alleged to be defective at the time of importation under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 . Plaintiff-Appellant Volkswagen of America, Inc.”

Samsung Elec. Am., Inc. v. United States, 904 F. Supp. 1403 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 7× “12 Samsung America first argues that Customs should reduce the dutiable value of the merchandise at issue in this action pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 (1990). According to Samsung America, section 158.”

Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 5× “SCUSA protested the liquidations, requesting allowances under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 for “damage [or] latent manufacturing defects.”

Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1385 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 4× “Volkswagen filed protests with Customs arguing that under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12 , it was entitled to an allowance in the appraised value of the automobiles because they were “damaged at the time of importation.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.