Customs delivered a final gift to the U.S. Lumber Coalition – three months prior to the March 31^st expiration of the SLA. It comes in the form of, once again, their choosing to ignore written rulings and C.I.T. precedents. Prior to the SLA, Customs consistently ruled, per Title 19 CFR, that Chapter 44 of the U.S.H.T.S. was NOT an "End Use" regulated chapter – classification is determined by the materials’ "Condition as Imported", not use. Conversely, since the SLA, "Fencing" Heading 4421, and "Rougher-Headed" Heading 4418 (prior to its revocation) were restricted according to proven "End-Use". These inconsistencies in interpretation, although heatedly debated, were mandated and enforced by Customs throughout the first four years and nine months of the SLA.

On December 27^th, after months of complying with the National Import Specialist’s mandate to secure "End-Use Affidavits" for every truss component entry - attesting that the material would be used in the construction of trusses and that the degree of angle on the material imported would not be altered, Customs issued a Notice stating: "Unless the materials were imported ready for assembly - without further processing, all non-liquidated entries will be re-classified under sub-heading 4407.10.0015".

Their position, "End Use Affidavits" aside, does not recognize that the condition of the material as imported (angle-cut one end) clearly and irrefutably, per GRI 3 (a), and (c), does not qualify under subheading 4407.10.1015, and goes against NY Rulings B80908, B81359 and B88564. These Rulings not only point out this GRI fact regarding angle-cut one end truss components and/or moldings, but specifically mandates that the angle-cut one end material be entered under subheading 4418.90.4090 - while providing that these materials can be further processed in the U.S. prior to assembly. Last, but not least, their position goes against the Court of International Trade’s 1999 "Heartland By-Products vs U.S. Customs" case - ruling that "an exporter can engineer materials so as to benefit from preferential Tariff treatment". This same C.I.T. case admonished Customs from revoking rulings or interpretations upon which companies or industries relied to develop their market. In that this recent "Action" is reported to be Washington’s position - Protests will fall on deaf ears. However, in view of these facts, any Customs Lawyer should relish taking this interpretation to the C.I.T.

Michael D. Jones, President