E. Editorial correction: Publication of rulings The words, "Federal Register," should be substituted for the words, "weekly Treasury Decisions" (now Customs Bulletin) in section 516(b) of H.R. 18533 (p. 16, line 4). The words, "Federal Register," should be substituted for the words, "weekly Treasury Decisions" (now Customs Bulletin) in section 315 (d) of the current Tariff Act of 1930. While acknowledging that the Customs Bulletin (formerly weekly Treasury Decisions) is the authoritative instrument of the Commissioner of Customs for the announcement of official rulings and decisions of the Bureau of Customs, it remains that the Federal Register is the primary vehicle in the executive branch for the publication of statements of policy and interpretations and statements of established and uniform practice. Needless to say, such announcements are also published in the weekly Customs bulletin. The recommendation herein adheres to the tenor of sections 551-554, title 5, U.S. Code (Administrative Procedure). The persistence of the words, "weekly Treasury Decisions" in the statutes is because of historical reasons. The Federal Register commenced publication in 1936, whereas "Treasury Decisions" was already in existence at that time. F. Editorial correction: Refunds and errors Current section 520 (c) (2) of the Tariff Act should be amended to read as follows: (see p. 19, line 18 of H.R. 18533): *** any assessment of duty on household or personal effects in respect of which an application for refund has been filed, with the appropriate customs officers, within one year after the date of entry. There will be consistency with the other provisions of H.R. 18533, with respect to the phrase, "appropriate customs officer." A look at some provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which are not treated by H.R. 18533 Section 321. (a) (1) "$10" should be substituted for "$3." As amended, the provision would read as follows: SEC. 321. (a) (1) disregard a difference of less than $10 between the total estimated duties or taxes deposited, or the total duties or taxes tentatively assessed, with respect to any entry of merchandise and the total amount of duties or taxes actually accruing thereon; and Section 321. (a) (2) (C) "$1 in any other case" should be repealed. The following new subdivision (3) should be added: (3) admit articles free of duty and of any tax imposed on or by reason of importation where the aggregate duty and tax on articles imported by one person on one day does not exceed $1. Section 321. (a) (1) In view of the recent large-scale reductions of rates of duty resulting from the Kennedy round of negotiations at Geneva, $10 tolerance would seem practicable. At a 10-percent rate of duty, it would require a variance of $100 of entered value to cause a duty consequence of a mere $10. In December 1964, the Stover report (An Evaluation of: Mission, Organization, Management, Bureau of Customs, Treasury Depart ment) recommended an increase from $3 to $5 (Recommendation VI41, p. VI-52). Subsequent events have already rendered obsolete the recommended $5 amount, even though it has yet to be effectuated. Section 321. (a) (2) (C) and suggested (3). This was a recommendation of the Stover report (Recommendation VI-15, p. VI-15). Considering today's commercial realities, it seems practicable to apply the $1 limitation to the duty and tax, rather than to the value of the merchandise. Section 482, Certified invoice, should be repealed in its entirety. The certified invoice has gone out of vogue. Since it is no longer the practice to use the certified invoice, section 482 of the Tariff Act is now obsolete. Because it serves no useful purpose, it should be repealed. Section 484 (b) should be amended as follows: PRODUCTION OF CUSTOMS INVOICE.-The Secretary of the Treasury shall provide by regulation for the production of a customs invoice with respect to such merchandise as he deems advisable and for terms and conditions under which such merchandise may be permitted entry under the provisions of this section without the production of a customs invoice. As intimated above (sec. 482), any reference to the certified invoice should be excised from the statute. The suggested amendment to 484 (b) would accomplish this purpose. The word, "special" is superfluous in the phrase, "special customs invoice," in the present 484(b), and should be deleted. Section 484. (h) and (i) There should be repealed, in their entirety, subsections (h) and (i) of section 484, pertaining to the right to make entry (carrier's certificate and duplicate bill of lading). Section 484. (1) The following language in the first sentence of subsection (j) of section 484 should be repealed: Merchandise shall be released from customs custody only to or upon the order of the carrier by whom the merchandise is brought to the port at which entry is made, except that Common carriers are strictly regulated by the Federal Maritime Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, or the Interstate Commerce Commission. Further, common carriers are subject to liability under the Federal Bills of Lading Act (49 U.S.C. 81-124). They are also subject to the "Bills of Lading" provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted by 47 States. It is presumed that the common carrier is acting lawfully and within the scope of its authority when it conveys bills of lading and other papers and receipts to a consignee, or when it processes an entry, either directly with customs or through a customhouse broker. The carrier, or a customhouse broker selected by the carrier, or the consignee, in making the entry in his own right (importer of record), is accepting the responsibilities and obligations entailed in the transaction. In any event, the various bonds posted by the carrier, or by the broker, or by the consignee, protect the rights of the Government. The various liabilities which inure to the benefit of the Government are safeguarded. The benefits will be the elimination of paperwork, forms, and requirements which retard making and processing entries, and which delay the movement of importations; better service to the importing public; reduction of paper handling, without injuring the interests of the Government. The recommendations are in accord with expeditious and sound business practice. Section 485. (e) Separate forms for purchase and nonpurchase importations. Subsection (e) of section 485 should be repealed in its entirety. The provision has not been complied with for many years. It is obsolete. It clutters the statute. The current special customs invoice (Customs Form 5515), for example, is a consolidated "purchase" and "nonpurchase" form. Section 498. (a) (1) "$500" should be substituted for "$250". The current maximum limit of $250 for informal entries is out of step with the present-day commercial realities of international trade. The need for a higher maximum will be emphasized by forthcoming effectuation of the substantial reduction in rates of duty resulting from the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations at Geneva. A maximum of at least $500 is reasonable. It would avoid the extensive precautionary procedures surrounding formal entries and which do not usually affect informal entries, those presently not greater than $250. The duty consequence of a $500 entry at 20 percent, for example, is $100. Such a duty amount can safely go through the less burdensome procedure of an informal entry. World trade has doubled in the past 8 years, and will double in the next decade. It will be very necessary, on a continuous basis, to gear the administrative provisions of the Tariff Act to business conditions. The trend is toward the obliteration of the distinction between an entry of the "informal" type and that of the "formal" type. Forthcoming data processing and retrieval operations, enabling speedy decisionmaking, will be capable of absorbing virtually all entries, regardless of dollar amounts, however large or however small. Section 522. Conversion of currency. The following changes should be made in section 522: Repeal subsection (a) in its entirety. Redesignate subsection "(b)" as subsection "(a)". For the purpose of the assessment and collection of duties upon merchandise imported into the United States on or after the day of the enactment of this Act, whenever it is necessary to convert foreign currency into currency of the United States, such conversion, except as provided in subdivision (b), shall be made at the values first certified as the buying rate by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the quarter in which the merchandise was exported. Redesignate subsection "(c)" as subsection "(b)". (b) (1) If the buying rate at noon on the day of exportation varies by 5 per centum or more from the buying rate first certified for a day in the quarter in which the day of exportation falls, then conversion of the foreign currency involved shall be made at a value measured by such buying rate on the day of exportation. The provision for proclaimed rates is obsolete. Under current practice, all rates for customs purposes are certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Statutes should reflect realities. NOTE. Of course, if the Brussels Definition of Value is adopted, "day of exportation" would be changed to "the time when duty be comes payable." In the United States, duty becomes payable at the time of making entry. Revised Statutes: Obsolete provision Revised Statutes, section 251 (R.S. 251, 19 U.S.C. 66) should be repealed. It grants to the Secretary of the Treasury authority to promulgate regulations pertaining to imports and duties. Section 624 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (sec. 624, 46 Stat. 759; U.S.C. 1624) grants such authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. It is redundant to have two provisions granting the same authority. GRAUBARD & MOSKOVITZ, (Attention of Tom Vail, Esq., Chief Counsel). COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, New York, N.Y. GENTLEMEN: We enclose five copies of a statement of the Organic Chemicals Group of the American Importers Association, Inc., concerning American selling price valuation which is submitted for inclusion in the compendium being compiled by the committee for use in its "Legislative Oversight Review of U.S. Trade Policies." For the information of the committee, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. section 611(q) (ii), we inform you that the names of the companies in the Organic Chemicals Group which have foreign parents, and the names of such foreign parents, are as follows: STATEMENT OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS GROUP OF THE AMERICAN IMPORTERS ASSOCIATION-CONSIDERATIONS FAVORING THE ELIMINATION OF AMERICAN SELLING PRICE VALUATION 1 INTRODUCTION This statement is submitted by the Organic Chemicals Group of the American Importers Association, Inc. (AIA) in response to the invitation of the Honorable Russell B. Long, chairman of the committee, contained in a release dated September 27, 1967, to interested parties to submit statements on subjects to be covered in the committee's "Legislative Oversight Review of U.S. Trade Policies." The Organic Chemicals Group is a group formed and existing under the auspices of the AIA, a national organization of American companies, firms, and individuals who subscribe to a liberal trade policy and to the goal of expanded international trade. The AIA has over many years devoted its attention to broad matters of trade policy before the Congress and other branches of the Government such as, for example, support for the enactment of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Its commodity groups, among them the Organic Chemicals Group, in turn, deal with trade matters affecting particular groups of products. The Organic Chemicals Group was formed approximately 4 years ago by importers of benzenoid chemicals who were members of the AIA principally because it was expected-an expectation which was fully borne out-that special attention would be paid during the Kennedy round to the tariff structure on chemicals. The U.S. chemical industry for many years has had an unusual type and degree of tariff protection. In addition to high tariff rates, the industry for the last 45 years has been the beneficiary of a method of customs valuation, American selling price (ASP), which is unique among the major trading nations. Under ASP, the value for customs appraisement purposes of a benzenoid chemical import, which is competitive with a chemical manufactured in the United States, is not its own market value but rather the American wholesale price of the U.S. manufactured chemical. The Kennedy round negotiations afforded an opportunity to reduce or eliminate these American barriers to the chemical trade in return for important trade concessions on the part of the U.S. principal trading partners. The Group has appeared before the U.S. Tariff Commission and the Trade Information Committee of the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations to expose ASP as an unwarranted barrier to expanded U.S. trade in chemicals and to document the fact that elimination of this barrier will not adversely affect the U.S. chemical industry. It has also undertaken the task of demonstrating that the resulting lower chemical duties on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific will be economically beneficial to all. The Group, because of its composition, was in a uniquely favorable position to undertake this task. A number of its member companies, 1 For other views on the American Selling Price issue see statements by Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, p. 487, and Michael Daniels on behalf of the Swiss Union of Industry and Commerce, p. 64. |