(a) Ruling letters—(1) Generally. The Customs Service will endeavor to issue a ruling letter setting forth a determination with respect to a specifically described Customs transaction whenever a request for such a ruling is submitted in accordance with the provisions of this part and it is in the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so. Otherwise, a request for a ruling will be answered by an information letter or, in those situations in which general information is likely to be of little or no value, by a letter stating that no ruling can be issued.
(2) Submission of ruling letters to field offices. Any person engaging in a Customs transaction with respect to which a binding tariff classification ruling letter (including pre-entry classification decisions) has been issued under this part shall ascertain that a copy of the ruling letter is attached to the documents filed with the appropriate Customs Service office in connection with that transaction, or shall otherwise indicate with the information filed for that transaction that a ruling has been received. Any person receiving a ruling setting forth the tariff classification of merchandise shall set forth such classification in the documents or information filed in connection with any subsequent entry of that merchandise; the failure to do so may result in a rejection of the entry and the imposition of such penalties as may be appropriate. A ruling received after the filing of such documents or information shall immediately be brought to the attention of the appropriate Customs Service field office.
(3) Disclosure of ruling letters. The ruling letter shall be based on the information set forth in the ruling request. No part of the ruling letter, including names, addresses, or information relating to the business transactions of private parties, shall be deemed to constitute privileged or confidential commercial or financial information or trade secrets exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), unless, as provided in § 177.2(b)(7), the information claimed to be exempt from disclosure is clearly identified and the reasons for the exemption are set forth. Before the issuance of the ruling letter, the person submitting the ruling request, will be notified of any decision adverse to his claim for exemption from disclosure and will, upon written request to Customs within 10 working days of the date of notification, be permitted to withdraw the ruling request. All ruling letters issued by the Customs Service will be available, upon written request, for inspection and copying by any person (with any portions determined to be exempt from disclosure deleted).
(b) Other rulings. The Headquarters Office may from time to time issue other rulings with respect to issues or transactions described or suggested by requests for rulings submitted under the provisions of this part, or with respect to issues or transactions otherwise brought to its attention. These rulings, which are statements of the official position of the Customs Service which are likely to be of widespread interest and application, are published in the Customs Bulletin, as described in § 177.10.
[T.D. 75-186, 40 FR 31929, July 30, 1975, as amended by T.D. 80-285, 45 FR 80105, Dec. 3, 1980; T.D. 84-149, 49 FR 28699, July 16, 1984; T.D. 89-74, 54 FR 31516, July 31, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
· cites it 2× “19 CFR § 177.8 (2000). A ruling letter "represents the official position of the Customs Service with respect to the particular transaction or issue described therein and is binding on all Customs Service personnel in accordance with the provisions of this section until modified…”
Price v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc., 697 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (2000). In denying Chevron deference to the Service’s ruling letters, Mead first explained, “It is fair to assume generally that Congress contemplates administrative action with the effect of law when it provides for a relatively formal adminis- trative…”
United States v. Rockwell Automation Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
· cites it 6× “” 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (a)(2). Therefore, in circumstances where Customs has issued a pre-entry classification ruling, the question that importers are answering on entry documents is: “What has Customs told you the classification of the merchandise is?” In light of the question…”
Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States, 2017 CIT 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 2× “Among the regulations so prescribed therefrom is 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (b), which provides that the agency may issue, in addition to rulings addressing a specific importer’s transactions, "other rulings with respect to issues or transactions described or suggested by requests for…”
S. Shrimp All. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
· cites it 2× “” The reference to 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (a)(3) pertains solely to ruling letters and, accordingly, is not relevant to the court’s consideration of this claim.”
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 840 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“Based on each company’s submission, Customs issued new ruling letters — pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 — in August of 1985, permitting the importation of certain shipments of mixed ethanol under the pre-August 2, 1985, practice — i.”
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 636 F. Supp. 921 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
“” 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (a)(2). An examination of the grandfather decisions herein shows that at least some of them required additional documentation by the importers before Customs would issue a letter that could be attached to the import documents.”
California Indus. Prods. v. United States, 2004 CIT 122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
“Disclosure is governed by 31 CFR part 1, 19 CFR part 103, and 19 CFR 177.8(a)(3). 13 Id. (citing Precision I, 24 CIT at 1043).”
Sony Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 2013 CIT 153 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
“” 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (b) (2007). Court No. 09-00043 13 Next in 2006, Customs classified digital cameras capable of taking both still and moving images (thousands of images and hours of video) under 8525.”
Ross Cosmetics Distrib. Centers, Inc. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 814 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
“19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (a)(1) (1992). Under the circumstances of this proceeding, Customs should have requested more information so that it would be able to issue a ruling based on relevant factors.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3) — 4 cases
S. Shrimp All. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
“” The reference to 19 C.F.R. § 177.8 (a)(3) pertains solely to ruling letters and, accordingly, is not relevant to the court’s consideration of this claim.”
California Indus. Prods. v. United States, 2004 CIT 122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
“Disclosure is governed by 31 CFR part 1, 19 CFR part 103, and 19 CFR 177.8(a)(3). 13 Id. (citing Precision I, 24 CIT at 1043).”
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.