HQ 545137: Household articles; subheading 9804.00.05; appraisement; 19U.S.C. 1401a(f)

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 545137

                          May 21, 1993


VAL CO:R:C:V 545137 CRS

CATEGORY:  Valuation

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
300 South Ferry Street
Terminal Island
San Pedro, CA 90731

RE:  Household articles; subheading 9804.00.05; appraisement; 19
U.S.C.   1401a(f)

Dear Sir:

     This is in reply to your memorandum dated November 5, 1992,
under cover of which you forwarded an application for further
review of Protest No. 2704-92-102559 filed by Politis, Pollack &
Doram, counsel for protestant, Mr. Shahen Avanesyan.

FACTS:

     The protest concerns a shipment of eleven carpets of Iranian
origin imported by protestant through Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX).  Protestant contends the carpets are classifiable
as household effects of subheading 9804.00.05, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA).  Protestant has
not provided any evidence to substantiate his claim that the
carpets are household effects.  The carpets in question were not
imported with other household goods; moreover, protestant advised
Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures at LAX that the carpets were the
personal effects of his brother who "intends" to immigrate.

     Protestant also maintains the carpets should be appraised on
the basis of their original invoice value rather than pursuant to
19 U.S.C.   1401a(f).  In support of this, counsel for protestant
cites section 143.13, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 143.13) for the
proposition that "Customs should rely on the certified invoice
provided by the importer to establish value,"  and has submitted
a 1981 invoice from a merchant in Beirut, Lebanon, in the amount
of $8,300.00.  The carpets were exported from Lebanon to the
United States in December 1989.  When the carpets arrived at LAX
the concerned import specialist appraised them at $50,000.00, on
the basis of 19 U.S.C. 1401a(f).

ISSUE:

     The issues presented are:  (1) whether the merchandise in
question is classifiable in subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUSA; and
(2) whether the merchandise was properly appraised pursuant to 19
U.S.C.   1401a(f).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUSA provides, inter alia, for
household effects imported by or for the account of any person
arriving in the United States from a foreign country, that were
actually used abroad by that person or his family for not less
than one year.  Protestant has not provided any evidence to
substantiate his claim that the carpets are household effects. 
The carpets were not imported with other household goods, nor
were they worn; moreover, they do not even appear to have been
the property of the protestant.  Accordingly, the carpets in
question are not classifiable under the provision for household
effects of subheading 9804.0.05, HTSUSA.

     Merchandise imported into the United States is appraised in
accordance with section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA; 19 U.S.C.   1401a). 
The preferred method of appraisement is transaction value,
defined as "the price actually paid or payable for merchandise
when sold for exportation to the United States."  19 U.S.C.
 1401a(b)(1).

     The protested merchandise was not sold for exportation to
the United States.  Instead, protestant alleges that he acquired
the carpets in Lebanon in 1981 where they apparently remained
until December 1989 when they were exported to the United States. 
In HRL 542416 dated July 31, 1981 (TAA No. 7), Customs held that
sales in a foreign country are not "sales for exportation to the
United States" unless the merchandise is irrevocably destined for
exportation to the United States.  When the carpets were acquired
by the protestant's brother they were not irrevocably destined
for exportation to the United States.  Transaction value is
therefore inapplicable.

     When imported merchandise cannot be appraised on the basis
of transaction value, it is appraised in accordance with the
remaining methods of valuation, applied in sequential order.  The
next basis of appraisement is the transaction value of identical
or similar merchandise; however there is no information regarding
sales of identical or similar merchandise and this method is
therefore inapplicable.  Deductive value is the next applicable
method of appraisement; but as the carpets were ostensibly
imported for household use, and as deductive value requires a
sale in the United States, this method is also eliminated from
consideration.  Similarly, computed value is inapplicable since
there is no information relating to the cost of production.

     Where merchandise cannot be appraised under the methods set
forth in 19 U.S.C.   1401a(b)-(e), its value is to be determined
in accordance with the "fallback" method of 19 U.S.C.   1401a(f). 
This method provides that merchandise should be appraised on the
basis of a value derived from one of the prior methods reasonably
adjusted to arrive at a value.

     Protestant contends the carpets at issue should be appraised
at $8,300.00, on the basis of their original acquisition price in
1981; however, there is no authority for this approach under the
TAA.  The carpets were actually appraised at $50,000.00 under the
fallback method, 19 U.S.C.   1401a(f), the preceding statutory
methods of appraisement (19 U.S.C.   1401a(b)-(e)) having been
eliminated from consideration.  We have no grounds for disputing
the port's determination of value under the fallback method. 
Accordingly, protestant's claim should be denied.

HOLDING:

     The protested carpets are not classifiable as household
articles of subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUSA.  The correct basis of
appraisement is the fallback method under 19 U.S.C.   1401a(f).

     You are instructed to deny the protest in full.  A copy of
this decision should be sent to the protestant together with the
Form 19 Notice of Action.

                         Sincerely,





                         John Durant, Director