1. Match the Entry to the Actual Transaction
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1484, the importer of record must use reasonable care when providing information CBP uses to determine release, classification, value, duties, and other entry requirements.
A customs broker may prepare the entry, but the importer should still be able to connect each material declaration to the underlying transaction records. That means comparing what CBP received with the records created by the actual commercial transaction.
Compare the Entry with the Invoice
The entry summary and commercial invoice should describe the same shipment, although they serve different purposes.
Useful comparison points include:
- Product description and quantity;
- HTS classification;
- Declared country of origin;
- Invoice price and currency;
- Seller and buyer information; and
- Separately stated freight or other charges.
A difference is not automatically an error. A supplier may use a broad product name while tariff classification depends on composition, function, material, or another technical characteristic.
Product specifications can therefore explain a difference that the invoice alone cannot. A disputed tariff provision may require a separate customs law analysis.
Use Contracts to Test the Declared Value
The invoice total does not necessarily resolve customs valuation.
Depending on the transaction, the review may need to address whether a related-party price is acceptable as transaction value and whether assists, certain royalties or license fees, proceeds, or other statutory additions must be included.
Purchase agreements, supply contracts, payment records, and licensing documents can establish facts that do not appear on the commercial invoice. A customs valuation review should apply the governing valuation method to the actual transaction rather than treating a related-party relationship or every additional payment as an automatic addition to customs value.
2. Classification, Valuation, and Origin Require Different Records
The three issues appear on the same entry, but each depends on different facts.
Classification concerns the characteristics of the merchandise. Valuation concerns the amount properly reported under the applicable valuation method. Origin concerns where the goods originate under the rule applicable to the particular customs requirement, such as marking or a preferential tariff claim.
Product Records Support Classification
A marketing name or supplier description may be too general to support an HTS classification.
Technical specifications, materials, dimensions, manufacturing information, photographs, manuals, and descriptions of function can establish characteristics that matter under the tariff schedule.
Two products with similar names should not automatically receive the same classification if their legally relevant features differ.
Origin Depends on the Applicable Rule
The seller's address or the place from which goods were shipped does not necessarily establish country of origin.
Manufacturing records, bills of materials, supplier declarations, production locations, and the applicable origin rule may be needed. A preferential tariff claim can also require documentation specific to the trade program involved.
An importer reviewing rules of origin should therefore distinguish evidence of manufacture or transformation from documents showing only where the goods were purchased or shipped.
3. Records Should Explain What the Importer Declared
Release of the shipment does not end the recordkeeping obligation.
Under 19 C.F.R. Part 163, specified customs records must be retained and produced when required. Section 163.4 generally uses a five-year retention period for many entry-related records, subject to stated exceptions.
The practical issue is whether the importer can connect a declaration on a particular entry to the documents that supported it at the time.
Depending on the transaction, that file may include invoices, purchase orders, payment records, shipping documents, product specifications, origin materials, broker communications, and prior classification or valuation analyses.
Broker communications can be particularly useful when several parties supplied information for the filing. They may show what the importer provided, what the broker requested, and where a disputed data point entered the entry process.
4. Identify the CBP Action before Choosing a Response
Not every contact from CBP represents a final customs decision.
A CBP Form 28 is a Request for Information. It may request documents, samples, or explanations concerning classification, appraisement, admissibility, or another entry issue.
A CBP Form 29, Notice of Action, serves a different purpose and may communicate proposed or completed agency action. A proposed action should not be treated as though a final customs determination has already occurred.
The same distinction matters when an internal review identifies an entry problem. For an entry eligible for the PSC process, a Post Summary Correction may be available through ACE before liquidation if the applicable filing requirements are met.
A protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 serves a different function. It applies to specified CBP decisions and generally carries a 180-day statutory filing period tied to liquidation, reliquidation, or another qualifying decision.
PSC and protest are therefore not interchangeable. The available procedure turns on the status of the entry and the CBP action already taken.
5. Santa Clara County Identifies the Business, Not a Customs Regime
Federal law controls customs entry, classification, valuation, recordkeeping, and protest procedures.
A business located in Santa Clara County does not use a separate county tariff schedule or county customs appeal process. Its office address also does not by itself determine which CBP port or unit handles a shipment.
The entry documents, port information, shipment route, and CBP action provide a better basis for identifying the relevant federal process.
California law may separately regulate products, environmental matters, taxes, labeling, or other business activity. Those state requirements should be analyzed independently rather than described as part of customs law.
27 Oct, 2026
