Jones & Jones was, personally, able to convince Customs and Commerce that Commerce’s perception and written regulation with regard to "Reimbursement Certificates" applicable to CVD assessments - was erroneous. However, even though flawed in part, Commerce is correct in their perception and written regulations with regard to these certificates’ applicability to Anti-dumping (AD) assessments.

As you may also be aware, Jones & Jones has petitioned Commerce and U.S. Customs to allow a compromise with regard to how AD Reimbursement Certificates are to be administered. Regulations direct U.S. buyers to tender certificates to Customs prior to liquidation, either singularly or with attached listings of every entry, per port. In a "best case" scenario, brokers would want to incorporate this program into their billing practices, whereas they provide their client the entry numbers, as they normally would as part of the billing back-up. Their client adds the entry and port data to a "Reimbursement Certificate", signs it and mails it back to the broker for tendering to Customs – prior to liquidation, or along with the "Entry Summary". One of the flaws in Commerce’s understanding of the Canadian lumber industry is that in 95% of the cases, the Canadian exporter is also the "Importer of Record". The U.S. buyer is NOT invoiced by the Broker, is NOT privy to the Broker/I.O.R.’s entry numbers, and therefore CANNOT complete the certificate – providing the entry numbers or port of entry. The thought of directing the Canadian exporter to track their shipments by entry number and then provide them to their respective U.S. buyers, to include applicable port of entry information, requiring the U.S. Buyer to list them on a Reimbursement Certificate and file it with the appropriate broker at their specific port of entry - would be ludicrous.

Our proposal involved the broker providing their client (the Canadian Importer of Record) with a "Master" certificate, without the entry number or port of entry, which the exporter would, in turn, provide to each of their U.S. buyers. The U.S. buyers would sign the form and send it back to the broker indicated by the exporter. The broker would file and retain ALL certificates by U.S. buyer name. Customs could then, via a standard CF-28 "Request for Information", on a "spot-check" basis, request a certificate or series of certificates specific to any given number of entries. The broker would pull the U.S. buyer’s "Master", add the entry number(s) and port of entry and tender it to Customs – complying with Commerce’s regulations. Instead of literally hundreds of thousands of certificates, bogging down the U.S. buyer, the broker and Customs, Customs could ensure compliance by only having to review a few hundred. The "Masters" and entry data applicable to each, would be retained in the broker’s records, available at any time Customs or Commerce should wish to review them.

In lieu of ever getting Commerce’s and Customs’ written approval of our proposal, we have determined a method to eliminate MUCH of the hassle, using a part of the procedures suggested in our compromise proposal. We intend to alter the actual certificate to the degree that it will work as a "Master". We ask that the Canadian Exporter/I.O.R. broker-client provide each of their U.S. buyers with a certificate, instructing them to complete it as far as full company name and address, to include signature and title, and return to us so that WE can file the "Master". We will complete them with regard to entry number/port of entry data applicable to any and all entries facilitated by us for the Canadian exporter/U.S. buyer combination, tendering them to Customs prior to liquidation, or in the event they agree to our proposal, upon request.

To that end, we have included a "Master" Reimbursement Certificate for YOUR forwarding to EACH of your U.S. buyers, along with instructions that it MUST be completed, signed and returned immediately to our attention. We will retain all "Masters", to include providing a copy of each to our sub-agents at their respective ports of entry. Because it is our desire to facilitate this program in as least a disruptive manner as possible to ALL concerned, we would ask that as opposed to your providing the certificate as you make a sale, that you provide them to as many past, present and/or prospective buyers as possible, explaining why you are doing so AND that they return them to us immediately, even if they have yet to purchase from you since May 22^nd – so that we can file them enmass to our sub-agents. If a U.S. buyer provided a certificate by you never purchases AD materials from you, the certificate will never be required to be tendered. If they do, at any time in the future, we will already have it - have provided it to each of our sub-agents, and will not have to bother YOU or THEM in a singular instance basis if they do purchase months or possibly even years from now (depending upon when this case is resolved), to include going through the process of providing such certificates to our sub-agents in a similar singular manner. This will allow us to keep our costs down. If we were forced to secure the certificates after-the-fact, on a per-buyer, at-time-of-purchase format, resulting in a considerable increase in work on everyone’s part, we would have to assess additional fees, over and above our normal CVD/AD lumber entry rates to compensate. Help us help you keep your costs associated to this already distasteful situation as low as possible.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and cooperation in this matter, we remain,

Sincerely,

Michael D. Jones, President