HQ 545590: Application for Further Review of Protest Numbers 3501- 93-100050, 3501-92-100374 and 3501-93-100051; Price Actually Paid or Payable; Transaction Value; Freight.

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 545590
                        November 20, 1994
CO:R:C:V  545590 er

CATEGORY: Valuation

Area Director
Minneapolis, MN  55401

RE:  Application for Further Review of Protest Numbers 3501-
     93-100050, 3501-92-100374 and 3501-93-100051; Price
     Actually Paid or Payable; Transaction Value; Freight.

Dear Sir:

     These protests were filed by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf
of their client xxxxxxxxxx, against your appraisement decision in
the liquidation of entries of screws.  The merchandise was
manufactured in Hong Kong and China.

FACTS:

     The subject importation consists of screws.  The merchandise
was entered on June 4, 8 and 27, 1992, and the entries subsequently
liquidated on December 4, 1992, based on the original invoice
values.  Protest 3501-92-100374 involves merchandise for which the
invoice reflects $x in freight collect charges and $y in prepaid
freight charges.  Protestant claims that the correct total amount
for non-dutiable freight charges should be $z ($y plus $x) and that
the $x amount was erroneously recorded on the invoice as freight
collect instead of as freight prepaid.  Protestant accordingly
claims a refund contending that $a ($x less $b delivered duty
charges paid by the importer) in prepaid ocean freight charges
should be deducted from the invoiced value to arrive at entered
value.  It is your position that because the invoice and the bill
of lading reflect the price as including $y, only, in prepaid
freight, and because no evidence has been submitted which supports
protestant's claim, the merchandise was properly appraised at the
time of entry based on the invoice value.

     Protest 3501-93-100050 involves merchandise for which the
invoice reflects $x in freight collect charges.  Protestant claims
a refund contending that the $x amount was erroneously recorded on
the invoice as freight collect instead of as freight prepaid. 
Protestant accordingly contends that $z ($x less $y delivered duty
charges paid by the importer) in prepaid ocean freight charges
should be deducted from the invoice value to arrive at the
appraised value.  It is your position that because the invoice and
the bill of lading reflect $x in ocean freight collect, and because
protestant has failed to furnish any documentation to prove that
such charges were included in the invoiced price, the merchandise
was properly appraised at the time of entry based on the invoice
value.

       Protest 3501-93-100051 involves merchandise for which the
invoice reflects $x in freight collect charges.  Protestant claims
that the $x aount was erroneously recorded on the invoice as
freight collect instead of as freight prepaid.  Protestant
accordingly claims a refund contending that $z($x less $y delivered
duty charges paid by the importer) in prepaid ocean freight charges
should be deducted from the invoice value to arrive at the
appraised value.  It is your position that because the invoice and
the bill of lading reflect $x in ocean freight collect, and because
protestant has failed to furnish any documentation to prove that
such charges were included in the invoiced price, the merchandise
was properly appraised at the time of entry based on the invoice
value.  

ISSUE:

     Whether protestant has established that it is entitled to a
freight adjustment in its appraised value.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     The primary basis of appraisement under the valuation statute,
section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 ("TAA"), is transaction value.  Transaction
value is defined by TAA section 402(b)(1) as "the price actually
paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to
the United States . . ." plus certain additions specified in
section 402(b)(1)(A) through (E).

     The price actually paid or payable is defined in section
402(b)(4)(A) of the TAA as the "total payment, . . . made, or to be
made, for the merchandise by the buyer to . . . the seller."  The
price actually paid or payable does not include those charges,
costs, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance, and
related services incident to the international shipment of the
merchandise from the country of exportation to the place of
importation in the United States.

     Section 484(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1484(a)), requires importers to file with Customs such
documentation as is necessary to enable Customs "to assess properly
the duties on the merchandise . . ."  It is well settled that the
importer has the burden of proving the validity of information on
entry documents and the veracity of a transaction in question in
order to properly appraise the merchandise.  See, C.S.D. 90-37 (HRL
544432 dated January 17, 1990, referring to T.D. 86-56, dated March
6, 1986).


     Protestant claims that the value of the subject shipments was
overstated by amounts erroneously characterized on the invoices as
freight collect charges, instead of as freight prepaid charges. 
Protestant accordingly claims that these amounts for freight were
included in the price and should have been allowed as a deduction
to arrive at the entered value; however, protestant has not
provided Customs with sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim
that the international freight charges were included in the invoice
price.

     As stated above, it is incumbent upon the importer/protestant
to make and prove its case.  In order for Customs to properly
assess the merits of a claim, sufficient evidence must be provided. 
Protestant has failed to submit any evidence whatsoever which would
support its claim for a lower entered value and request for a duty
refund.  

HOLDING:

     Based on the foregoing, we find that the merchandise was
properly appraised.  In view of protestant's failure to provide
Customs with evidence supporting its claim, you are hereby directed
to deny the subject protest.  In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b)
of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, this
decision should be mailed by your office no later than 60 days from
the date of this letter.  Any reliquidation of the entry in
accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing
of the decision.  Sixty days from the date of the decision the
Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the
decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings
Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription Service,
Lexis, Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels.

                                        Sincerely,



                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division