From June 2015 to September 2015, an importer entered five shipments of widgets as consumption entries despite his Customs attorney having advised him the widgets are subject to an antidumping case. In October 2015, CBP determined that the widgets should have been entered as antidumping entries and that the appropriate cash deposit rate for the widgets at the time of entry was 0.00%. Which of the following best describes the culpability of the importer for a penalty under 19 U.S.C. § 1592?
a) The importer is not culpable because there was no loss of revenue.
b) The importer is not culpable because, as the cash deposit rate is 0.00%, he is not liable for antidumping duties.
c) The importer is not culpable because CBP had previously released five shipments of the same merchandise, which is a contributory Customs error.
d) The importer may be culpable because the error affects CBP’s determination of whether an unfair trade practice has been committed.
e) The importer is culpable, but he will not receive a penalty if his customs attorney can show that his advice was given prior to the commencement of any CBP investigation.
[bg_collapse view=”button-green” color=”#4a4949″ icon=”arrow” expand_text=”Show Answer and Citation” collapse_text=”Hide Answer and Citation” ]
The Answer is: D
Citation: 19 CFR 171, Appendix B, 19 CFR 162.74
[/bg_collapse]