Abstract
Although the stakes appear to be much higher than for example in classification cases, origin rulings and advisories are far less common. The reason is possibly that origin disputes are settled or decided by different authorities and not always in court and that binding origin rulings are far less common than for example binding classification rulings. Possibly because of the limited number, the origin-related court cases do have a lot of impact and importance and are very much used as guidelines and indications for setting up a solid origin program and audit trail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example, the Papua New Guinea customs issued an information sheet in November of 2006 regarding Binding and Advance Rulings, directly associating the initiation of such system with the ability to accede to the World Customs Organization’s Revised Kyoto Convention.
- 2.
The European Union stipulates: “BOIs are decisions by the competent authorities, which are binding on the customs authorities … provided the goods and the circumstances determining the acquisition of origin are identical in every respect to what is described in the BOI.” ECC Regulation 82/97 provides the legal framework for BOIs, and the above text is the EU Customs Web site.
- 3.
Paragraph 1 of article 6.3 of the US – Australia FTA reads: 1. Each Party shall provide for written advance rulings to be issued to a person described in paragraph 2(a) concerning tariff classification, questions arising from the application of the Customs Valuation Agreement, country of origin, and the qualification of a good as an originating good under this Agreement.
- 4.
The legal basis for Binding Origin is article 12 of the Community Customs Code (2319/92) and articles 5 through 14 of the CCIP (2454/93). Article 6.3 of the implementation code lists the information to be included in a Binding Origin Ruling request.
- 5.
US Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) database is an online resource where US Customs Border Protection (CBP) rulings are available.
- 6.
Note that this does not imply that the shirts will receive preferential treatment (under GSP) upon importation into the USA. Whether the shirts qualify for preferential treatment depends on whether the Rules of Origin requirements as set forth in the US GSP legislation are met.
- 7.
Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 82-3-00404, United States Court of International Trade.
- 8.
United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co, Inc., No. 4255, 1 C.A.D. 98, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
- 9.
Belcrest Linens v. The United States, No. 84-734, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, August 21, 1984.
- 10.
Corrpro Companies, Inc v. United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 05-1073.
- 11.
Xerox Corporation v. United States, United State Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. – 423 F.3d 1356, September 19, 2005.
- 12.
United States v. Ford Motor Company, Slip Op. 05-86 and 05-87, initial penalties of over $20 million were imposed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van de Heetkamp, A., Tusveld, R. (2011). Legal Matters: Binding Origin Rulings and Court Cases. In: Origin Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19808-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19808-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19807-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19808-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)