H317599

H317599 March 11, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H317599 MY Category: Entry Center Director Industrial and Manufacturing Materials Center of Excellence and Expertise U.S. Customs and Border Protection Buffalo Field Office Buffalo, NY 14225 Attn: Charlene T. Henley, Import Specialist Re: Application for Further Review of Protest Number 4601-20-120362; alleged entry by broker without authority Dear Center Director: The purpose of this decision is to address the application for further review (“AFR”) of protest number 4601-20-120362 filed by Flagship Converters Inc. (“Flagship”) on August 31, 2020, regarding the liquidation of entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5. FACTS: Flagship Converters Inc. (“Flagship”) disputes its obligation to pay the final assessment of duties owed on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5 on the basis that it did not consent to be the importer of record for the entry. The merchandise at issue consisted of 48 rolls of metalized film entered on May 29, 2019, by customs broker NYC Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (“NYCSCS”). The entry (CBP Form 3461) and entry summary (CBP Form 7501) identify Flagship as the importer of record, as well as the ultimate consignee of the imported merchandise. The accompanying entry documentation, specifically the commercial invoice, packing list, and bill of lading, identify Flagship as the purchaser and ultimate consignee for the imported merchandise. Additionally, these documents identify Izotic Star SDN BHD (“Izotic”), an entity with a Malaysian address, as the seller and exporter. NYCSCS sent Flagship an invoice, dated May 24, 2019, for $1,868.21, encompassing the cost of the “entry fee,” the “importer security filing fee,” and “duties and fees.” Flagship paid the duties, and the entry was liquidated on April 24, 2020, and later reliquidated on May 29, 2020, after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) determined that the People’s Republic of China (“China”), rather than Malaysia, was the correct country of origin for the merchandise and additional duties were owed pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”). Flagship does not protest CBP’s country of origin determination and additional duties assessed at reliquidation. Instead, on August 31, 2020, Flagship protested its liability for payment of the duties owed on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5. Flagship asserts that it never authorized NYCSCS to enter the merchandise on its behalf, and that the latter’s conduct “constitute[d] the hijacking of Flagship’s identity…exposing Flagship to liabilities it never bargained for when it purchased the subject metallized film…” To substantiate that it did not authorize NYCSCS to make entry on its behalf, Flagship raises two arguments: First, that NYCSCS did not execute a power of attorney with Flagship prior to the entry date. The power of attorney provided by Flagship demonstrates that it was executed January 29, 2020, several months after the May 29, 2019, entry date. Second, that Flagship purchased the entered merchandise on a Delivered Duty Paid (“DDP”) basis, a contractual arrangement whereby “seller [must] bear the risks and costs, including duties, taxes and other charges of delivering the goods . . . cleared for importation” to the purchaser. Flagship contends this DDP arrangement evidences it did not contractually consent to assume liability for payment of duties. Flagship provided CBP with a copy of a different entry with a similar DDP arrangement where it was not designated as the importer of record to demonstrate how it intended for this entry transaction to be structured. Finally, Flagship speculates that “NYCSCS benefitted financially by filling of this entry [xxx-xxxxx93-5] through an undisclosed relationship with the seller, freight forwarder or both.” Such speculation, and the documents pertaining to a different entry, are outside the scope of the factual and legal analysis relevant for this protest of entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5 and will not be addressed herein. ISSUE: Whether Flagship is liable for the duties owed on entry xxx-xxxxx93-5. LAW AND ANALYSIS : As an initial matter, we note that this protest was timely filed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A), a party must file a protest within 180 days after the date of liquidation. The subject entry was liquidated on April 24, 2020, and later reliquidated on May 29, 2020. Flagship filed its protest on August 31, 2020, within the 180-day protest deadline for both the initial liquidation and subsequent reliquidation. We also find that this protest meets the criteria for further review. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b), this protest involves questions of law and fact which have not previously been ruled upon, specifically whether Flagship is liable for the duties owed on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5. 2 Flagship disputes its obligation to pay duties on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5 on the basis that it did not consent to be the importer of record for the entry. Flagship does not dispute the reliquidation of the entry due to CBP’s determination that the country of origin for the merchandise was China, and additional duties were owed under Section 301. Consequently, this determination and assessment of additional duties is final and conclusive. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) (explaining that CBP decisions are “final and conclusive upon all persons . . . unless a protest is filed”). Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.1(b)(1), “[t]he liability for duties, both regular and additional, attaching on importation, constitutes a personal debt due from the importer to the United States which can be discharged only by payment in full of all duties legally accruing, unless relieved by law or regulation.” The term “importer” in this circumstance refers to “the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise” who is generally the importer of record. 19 C.F.R. § 101.1. An importer of record is the owner or purchaser of the merchandise or, when appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee of the merchandise, a customs broker. 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a)(2)(B); see also Customs Directive 3530-002 (June 27, 2001) (defining “owner or purchaser” for purposes of the right to make entry as “any party with a financial interest in a transaction, including, but not limited to, the actual owner of the goods, [or] the actual purchaser of the goods”). An importer of record can avoid liability for any additional or increased duties owed on an entry if an actual owner’s declaration and superseding bond has been filed in accordance with § 141.20 of CBP Regulations. 19 C.F.R. §141.20. Flagship concedes that it was in fact the purchaser of the entered merchandise, and accepted delivery of this merchandise as the ultimate consignee for the entry. The protest record substantiates that Flagship, as the purchaser of the merchandise, qualifies as the importer of record for the merchandise. There is no evidence in the protest record of any party, such as the seller, filing “an actual owner’s declaration and superseding bond” to assume liability for duty payment in lieu of Flagship pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.20(a)(1)-(2). Nevertheless, Flagship seeks to avoid liability for the duties owed on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5 on the basis that it did not consent to be designated as the importer of record for the entry, as evidenced by a power of attorney executed with NYCSCS after the date of entry, and a private commercial contract requiring the seller to assume liability for duty payment. CBP has previously considered whether a party may avoid liability for duty payment by alleging that a broker who made entry on their behalf was not actually authorized to do so. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H271023, dated August 14, 2017, a protestant requested that CBP cancel an entry and the associated duty bill on the basis that “‘it did not intend, cause and/or authorize the filing of the entry in question.” The protestant alleged the party who signed a power of attorney on its behalf for 

As an initial matter, we note that this protest was timely filed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A), a party must file a protest within 180 days after the date of liquidation. The subject entry was liquidated on April 24, 2020, and later reliquidated on May 29, 2020. Flagship filed its protest on August 31, 2020, within the 180-day protest deadline for both the initial liquidation and subsequent reliquidation. We also find that this protest meets the criteria for further review. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b), this protest involves questions of law and fact which have not previously been ruled upon, specifically whether Flagship is liable for the duties owed on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5. 2 

Flagship disputes its obligation to pay duties on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5 on the basis that it did not consent to be the importer of record for the entry. Flagship does not dispute the reliquidation of the entry due to CBP’s determination that the country of origin for the merchandise was China, and additional duties were owed under Section 301. Consequently, this determination and assessment of additional duties is final and conclusive. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) (explaining that CBP decisions are “final and conclusive upon all persons . . . unless a protest is filed”). Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 141.1(b)(1), “[t]he liability for duties, both regular and additional, attaching on importation, constitutes a personal debt due from the importer to the United States which can be discharged only by payment in full of all duties legally accruing, unless relieved by law or regulation.” The term “importer” in this circumstance refers to “the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise” who is generally the importer of record. 19 C.F.R. § 101.1. An importer of record is the owner or purchaser of the merchandise or, when appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee of the merchandise, a customs broker. 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a)(2)(B); see also