GRVR ATTORNEYS, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SPECIALISTS
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • Client Dedication
    • Our Legal Team
    • Join Our Team
  • Our Practice
    • Customs and Import
    • 301refunds
    • Export
    • Litigation
    • Section 232 and 301 Tariffs
    • Outsource Your Classification
    • CBP Audits
    • Fines, Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures
    • Customs Brokers
    • C-TPAT >
      • Mexico C-TPAT >
        • C-TPAT In English
        • Quienes Somos/About Us
    • Foreign-Trade Zones
    • Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
    • Intellectual Property RIghts
    • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • Manifest Confidentiality
    • Contracts and Incoterms
    • False Claims Act and Whistleblower
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Newsletter >
      • brokermondernization
    • free online import mini-audit
    • free online export mini-audit
  • Calendar and Events
  • Best Customs Broker Exam Course
  • Contact

Saving Money by Challenging CBP’s Tariff Classification Rulings 

7/8/2011

0 Comments

 
One of the best ways for an importer to save money is to reduce the duties it pays on imported merchandise to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  A company can save thousands or even millions of dollars by classifying its merchandise under a heading with a lowest duty rate possible under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the US (HTSUS).

Importers commonly request that CBP classify items using the binding ruling request process.  CBP publishes its rulings online (CBP’s Customs Rulings Online Search System or CROSS), an extraordinarily convenient and helpful service to the trade community, especially given the size of CBP’s electronic database (which consists of tens of thousands rulings).  However, often CBP’s classification rulings can read like perfunctory edicts with little or no rationale.  Sometimes rulings contradict each other, and it is not at all clear which ruling wins (although interested parties are allowed to report and challenge inconsistent rulings).  Importers are often left to guess at CBP’s logic, to seek a pattern, to argue the merits of a preferred tariff classification, and to hope for the best.
There is also an unstated but obvious clash of interests between importers and CBP.  Importers seek to classify their imported merchandise under HTSUS headings that impose the lowest duty rate possible.  CBP is generally motivated in the opposite direction and, as a result, it can produce rulings that do not always correspond to the clear intent of the HTSUS or court precedent.
 
What happens if you don’t like CBP’s classification ruling?  You can ask that CBP reconsider the ruling, but once you run out of administrative remedies, the question becomes:  should you sue, as is your right, in the Court of International Trade?

Bringing a lawsuit made a lot more sense after the US Supreme Court rendered in 2002 its decision in Mead Corporation vs. U.S.  The case is remarkable on many levels, including that the U.S. Supreme Court chose to hear an import/customs case, a true rarity.  Writing for the majority, Justice Souter said that the courts should not use the Chevron standard (which requires an appellate court to generally defer to the administrative agency) when deciding a tariff classification appeal.  Courts should instead use the watered-down standard of Skidmore vs. Swift.  

Justice Souter wrote:

Under Skidmore, a classification ruling receives a measure of deference proportional to its "power to persuade." That power to persuade depends on the thoroughness evident in the classification ruling, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, the formality attendant the particular ruling, and all those factors that give it power to persuade.  In addition, Customs' relative expertise in administering the tariff statute often lends further persuasiveness to a classification ruling, entitling the ruling to a greater measure of deference. While this court therefore recognizes its responsibility to accord a classification ruling the degree of deference commensurate with its power to persuade, this court also recognizes its independent responsibility to decide the legal issue regarding the proper meaning and scope of the HTSUS terms.  This court construes a tariff term according to its common and commercial meanings, which it presumes are the same. To discern the common meaning of a tariff term, this court consults dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources.


The Skidmore standard provides importers with an enhanced opportunity to challenge CBP’s tariff classifications. The federal courts give CBP’s tariff classifications only the “power of persuade” deference, reviewing the arguments and evidence nearly as if presented for the first time.  The importer, in essence, almost gets a mulligan or a do-over.  As a result, there is now a healthy compilation of written opinions on tariff classification from the federal courts applying the General Rules of Interpretation and other canons of construction.  These judicial edicts force greater transparency, logic, and predictability upon CBP’s tariff classification rulings.  Importers can hold CBP accountable for incorrect tariff classifications.

It is surprising how few importers actually challenge CBP’s tariff classifications in light of the potential savings. There is, of course, no guarantee that filing a lawsuit will produce the desired tariff classification, and the merits and prospects for success of each case vary widely, but clearly challenging CBP should clearly be a possibility that importers may want to explore. 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Oscar Gonzalez

    Principal and a founding member of GRVR Attorneys.

    Archives

    September 2016
    December 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    April 2014
    November 2013
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    September 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010

    Categories

    All
    And Forfeitures
    Bankruptcy
    Border Searches
    Bureau Of Industry And Security
    Classification
    Commodity Jurisdiction
    Compliance
    Country Of Origin
    Court Of International Trade
    C TPAT
    C-TPAT
    Customs Broker Exam
    Customs Brokers
    Export
    Export License
    Export Penalties
    Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    HTSUS
    Immigration
    Importer Self-Assessment
    Incoterms
    Intellectual Property Rights
    International Sales Contracts
    ITRAC
    Litigation
    NAFTA
    OFAC
    Penalties
    Post-Entry Amendments
    Prior Disclosure
    Redelivery
    Sanctions
    Torts Claims Act

    RSS Feed

Picture
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • Client Dedication
    • Our Legal Team
    • Join Our Team
  • Our Practice
    • Customs and Import
    • 301refunds
    • Export
    • Litigation
    • Section 232 and 301 Tariffs
    • Outsource Your Classification
    • CBP Audits
    • Fines, Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures
    • Customs Brokers
    • C-TPAT >
      • Mexico C-TPAT >
        • C-TPAT In English
        • Quienes Somos/About Us
    • Foreign-Trade Zones
    • Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
    • Intellectual Property RIghts
    • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • Manifest Confidentiality
    • Contracts and Incoterms
    • False Claims Act and Whistleblower
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Newsletter >
      • brokermondernization
    • free online import mini-audit
    • free online export mini-audit
  • Calendar and Events
  • Best Customs Broker Exam Course
  • Contact