(a) Generally. Within 90 days after issuing any interpretive decision under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, relating to any Customs transaction (prospective, current, or completed), the Customs Service shall publish the decision in the Customs Bulletin or otherwise make it available for public inspection. For purposes of this paragraph an interpretive decision includes any ruling letter, internal advice memorandum, or protest review decision. Disclosure is governed by 31 CFR part 1, 19 CFR part 103, and 19 CFR 177.8(a)(3).
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Changes of practice. Before the publication of a ruling which has the effect of changing an established and uniform practice and which results in the assessment of a higher rate of duty within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1315(d), notice that the practice (or prior ruling on which that practice was based) is under review will be published in the Federal Register and interested parties will be given an opportunity to make written submissions with respect to the correctness of the contemplated change.
(d) Limiting rulings. A published ruling may limit the application of a court decision to the specific article under litigation, or to an article of a specific class or kind of such merchandise, or to the particular circumstances or entries which were the subject of the litigation.
(e) Effective dates. Except as otherwise provided in § 177.12(e) or in the ruling itself, all rulings published under the provisions of this part will be applied immediately. If the ruling involves merchandise, it will be applicable to all unliquidated entries, except that a change of practice resulting in the assessment of a higher rate of duty or increased duties shall be effective only as to merchandise entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the 90th day after publication of the change in the Federal Register.
[T.D. 75-186, 40 FR 31929, July 30, 1975, as amended by T.D. 78-394, 43 FR 49792, Oct. 25, 1978; T.D. 89-74, 54 FR 31517, July 31, 1989; T.D. 02-49, 67 FR 53496, Aug. 16, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
· cites it 4× “§ 1625 (a), and, at the time this action arose, could be modified without notice and comment under most circumstances, 19 CFR § 177.10 (c) (2000). [2] A broader notice-and-comment requirement for modification of prior rulings was added by statute in 1993, Pub.”
Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 297 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
· cites it 6× “The second cause of action asserted that because-Customs had changed its official position with regard to the meaning of the term “jewelry boxes,” it therefore violated its own regulations — 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (c)(2) — by reclassifying Jewelpak’s merchandise without first…”
Nat'l Juice Prods. Ass'n v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, plaintiffs contend that such notice was required pursuant to Customs’ regulation 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (c) (1985), which requires notice before publication of a ruling which has the effect of changing a practice or position of Customs.”
Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1402 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
· cites it 9× “According to Jewelpak, Customs violated 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (c)(2) when it failed to follow proper notice and comment procedures before revoking HRLs 086186 and 089830.”
Am. Air Parcel Forwarding Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 550 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
· cites it 11× “10 established a uniform practice pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (b), (c) (1983), and cannot be changed without publication in the Federal Register and without opportunity for public comment.”
Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United States, 600 F. Supp. 221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
· cites it 4× “Defendant maintains that absent a “finding” that such a practice exists by the Secretary of the Treasury, or a ruling published by Customs pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (b) (1983), 5 *223 no established and uniform practice can arise.”
Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff must show then that Customs’ October 10, 1997 denial of Precision’s protest was a ruling, and that it changed a “treatment” previously accorded by Customs to substantially identical transactions, and that Customs failed to follow the notice-and-comment procedure…”
Superior Wire, a Div. of Superior Prods. Co. v. United States, 669 F. Supp. 472 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff also asserts that Customs’ action regarding the shipment at issue represented a change in position resulting in a restriction, which change may not take place without notice and opportunity for comment, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (c)(2) (1986). Defendant argues…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(c) — 2 cases
— 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(c)(1) — 1 case
— 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(c)(2) — 1 case
Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1402 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
“According to Jewelpak, Customs violated 19 C.F.R. § 177.10 (c)(2) when it failed to follow proper notice and comment procedures before revoking HRLs 086186 and 089830.”
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.