Cross-Border Customs Origin Lawyer in Manhattan Reviews Transshipment

• Identify whether the dispute concerns nonpreferential origin, marking, preferential treatment, or a trade-remedy measure.
• Collect bills of materials, factory records, production steps, supplier invoices, purchase orders, and payment records.
• Match supplier certifications to the product, production period, and entries actually under review.
• Separate what occurred at the factory from later warehousing, relabeling, consolidation, or freight movement.

A rules of origin review should connect each document to the legal test CBP is applying. A certificate alone may not resolve a dispute when the manufacturing record points in another direction.

• Do not treat every third-country route as an EAPA case; first identify whether CBP alleges evasion of an antidumping or countervailing duty order.
• Trace bills of lading, warehouse records, container movement, supplier identities, and processing performed in each country.
• Preserve records showing whether intermediate-country activity changed the merchandise or only moved it.
• Keep EAPA deadlines and review procedures separate from an ordinary origin verification or § 1514 protest.

CBP has used EAPA to investigate alleged transshipment of merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders. The defense record should show the actual supply chain rather than rely on the country listed on one shipping document.

Under § 1401a, transaction value begins with the price actually paid or payable plus required additions. For related parties, the importer should test whether the relationship influenced price or whether an applicable test value supports the declared amount.

• Compare invoices, payment flows, intercompany agreements, assists, royalties, and post-entry price adjustments with the entry data.
• If transaction value cannot be used, follow the statutory sequence of alternative appraisement methods rather than an assumed uplift.
• Use tax transfer-pricing material only for what it proves; tax analysis does not replace the customs valuation test.
• Preserve the reason for any correction so later records do not suggest inconsistent explanations.

A customs valuation review can identify where commercial records and entry data diverge before those differences become the center of the CBP response.

• Current CBP Form 28 instructions call for a response within 30 days or contact with the named officer if more time is needed.
• Answer the information requested and reconcile the response with prior entries and earlier agency submissions.
• Prior disclosure under 19 C.F.R. § 162.74 depends on timing, required content, duty tender rules, and whether a formal investigation has begun.
• A CBP request does not automatically establish that prior-disclosure treatment is either available or unavailable.

A customs compliance and enforcement review should separate a factual response from a penalty strategy. General entry records are usually retained for five years under 19 C.F.R. § 163.4, subject to stated exceptions.

• A protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 generally must be filed within 180 days after liquidation, reliquidation, or another protestable decision.
• Identify each entry and each valuation or origin determination being challenged instead of filing a generic objection.
• A civil action contesting a protest denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) generally must begin within 180 days under § 2636(a).
• For a § 1581(a) action, liquidated duties, charges, or exactions generally must be paid before filing under § 2637(a).

A customs litigation review should begin with the agency decision and the jurisdictional prerequisites. The court path depends on the customs decision, not the importer's office location.