C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER I—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 177—ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS

19 C.F.R. § 177.0

Scope

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

This part relates to the issuance of rulings to importers and other interested persons by the CBP, other than advance rulings under Article 509 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (see subpart I of part 181 of this chapter). It describes the situations in which a ruling may be requested, the procedures to be followed in requesting a ruling, the conditions under which a ruling will be issued, the effect of a ruling when it is issued, and the publication of rulings in the Customs Bulletin. The rulings issued under the provisions of this part will usually be prospective in application and, consequently, will usually not relate to specific matters or situations presently or previously under consideration by any CBP field office. Accordingly, the rulings requested under the provisions of this part should be distinguished from the administrative rulings, determinations, or decisions which may be requested under procedures set forth elsewhere in this chapter, including, but not limited to, those set forth in part 12 (relating to submissions of proof of admissibility of articles detained under section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307)), part 103 (relating to disclosure of information in Customs files), subpart C of part 152 (relating to determinations concerning the dutiable value of merchandise by Customs field officers), part 153 (relating to enforcement of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended), part 159 (insofar as it relates to countervailing duties), part 171 (relating to fines, penalties, and forfeitures), part 172 (relating to liquidated damages), part 174 (relating to protests), and part 175 (relating to petitions filed by American manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers pursuant to section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended). Nor do the provisions of part 177 apply to requests for decisions of an operational, administrative, or investigative nature which are properly within the cognizance of a CBP Headquarters Office other than Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade.

[T.D. 80-285, 45 FR 80103, Dec. 3, 1980, as amended by T.D. 84-149, 49 FR 28699, July 16, 1984; T.D. 89-74, 54 FR 31515, July 31, 1989; T.D. 94-1, 58 FR 69473, Dec. 30, 1993; 89 FR 52379, June 24, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: The Mead Corp. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Mead Corp. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “See 19 C.F.R. § 177.0 , 177.1(a) (1998). Moreover, Customs rulings do not carry the force of law and are not, like regulations, intended to clarify the rights and obligations of importers beyond the specific case under review.”
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 636 F. Supp. 921 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “The other sections of Part 177 of the Service’s regulations cited in this memorandum, to wit, 19 C.F.R. 177.0, 177.1, 177.9(a), 177.9(c), 177.”
Cummins Engine Co. v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “Similar to Customs classification rulings under 19 C.F.R. 177.0, NAFTA advance rulings are neither prece-dential nor carry the force of law, see 19 C.”
Genesco, Inc. v. United States, 102 F. Supp. 2d 478 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “Mead holds that Haggar’s reach (and thus Chevron deference) does not extend to “ordinary” or “typical” Customs rulings, see 19 C.F.R. § 177.0 , 177.1(a) (1998), which do not involve such procedural safeguards as public debate or discussion, are confined to specific facts and…”
Am. Air Parcel Forwarding Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 550 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “See 19 C.F.R. § 177.0 -.il (1983). Certain parts of 19 C.”
Great Lakes Dredge v. Magnus, 128 F.4th 678 (5th Cir. 2025). “§ 1625 ; 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.0 , 177.9 (authorizing CBP ruling letters).”
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.