HQ 545510: Application for further review of Protest No. 1303-91-100361;post importation rebate or decrease in the price actually paid orpayable; 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(4)(B)

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 545510

                         January 7, 1994



VAL CO:R:C:V 545510 CRS

CATEGORY:  Valuation

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
200 St. Paul Place
28th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202

RE:  Application for further review of Protest No. 1303-91-100361;
post importation rebate or decrease in the price actually paid or
payable; 19 U.S.C.   1401a(b)(4)(B)

Dear Sir:

     This is in reply to your memorandum PRO-1-DD:CO:TT:1 TR, dated
January 21, 1993, under cover of which you forwarded the above
referenced application for further review, filed on behalf of the
Exalmet Division of Minerais de Fer U.S. Inc., by John S. Connor,
Inc. on November 13, 1991.  We regret the delay in responding.

FACTS:

     The instant protest concerns the appraisement of granulated
ferrochrome.  Protestant maintains that the invoice submitted at
the time of entry was provisional and that the price actually paid
or payable for the merchandise was in fact lower than that shown
on the entry documentation.  Consequently, protestant contends that
duty was overpaid by the amount of $1,117.86.

     In support of its claim protestant has submitted a Settlement
Report prepared by its Controller that reflects the difference
between the price stated on the so-called "provisional" invoice and
the alleged "final" price.  However, you note that there is nothing
to indicate that the price actually paid or payable for the
merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States was
other than that shown on the invoice submitted at the time of
entry.  As a result, it is your position that the "final" price
claimed by the protestant represents a rebate effected after the
date of importation.

ISSUE:
 
     The issue presented is whether the protested merchandise was
correctly appraised based on the price reflected on the invoice
submitted at the time of entry.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     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 under the TAA is transaction
value, defined as "the price actually paid or payable for the
merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States," plus
certain additions to the extent applicable.  19 U.S.C.  
1401a(b)(1).  For the purposes of this ruling we have assumed that
transaction value is the appropriate basis of appraisement.

     Section 402(b)(4) of the TAA provides that any rebate of, or
other decrease in, the price actually paid or payable effected
after merchandise is imported into the U.S. is to be disregarded
in determining transaction value.  19 U.S.C.   1401a(b)(4)(B).  In
this instance no documentation has been provided which would
support the contention that a rebate of, or other decrease in, the
price actually paid or payable by the protestant was effected
before the merchandise was imported into the U.S.  Accordingly,
the decrease in the price alleged by the protestant was properly
disregarded in determining the transaction value of the imported
merchandise.

HOLDING:

     The protest should be denied in full.  A copy of this decision
should be sent to the protestant together with the Form 19 Notice
of Action.

     In accordance with section 3A(11)(b), Customs Directive 099
3550-065 dated August 4, 1993, this decision should be mailed to
the protestant no later than sixty days from the date of this
letter.  Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the
decision must be accomplished prior to the mailing of the decision. 
Sixty days from the date of this 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 to the
public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis, the Freedom
of Information Act and other public access channels.

                         Sincerely,

                         John Durant, Director