Georgia Woman Says Insufficient Information to Correctly Answer 4 Questions on Broker Exam
Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 contesting four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam, claiming that the questions "lacked sufficient information" that would have allowed her to make an "informed choice." Stoute-Francois added that some of the questions "unreasonably called for knowledge" that a test taker "would have no reasonable basis to possess" and that CBP "failed to adequately explain its decision to deny" her credit for some of the questions (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The first question, Question 16, asked on how frequent a basis an application for admission becomes liable for harbor maintenance fees where they import cargo admitted into a foreign-trade zone. The Georgia woman said weekly, while CBP said the answer is quarterly.
CBP cited 19 C.F.R. Section 24.24(e)(2)(iii), which says that the fees must be paid on a quarterly basis. The agency said the regulation which Stoute-Francois relied on, 19 C.F.R. Section 24.24(d)(4), is only implicated if the value of the cargo exceeds $10,000 or if the value of the shipments was assessed for the quarter. The Georgia woman said that without more facts, "it is unclear whether the 'imported cargo'" in the question "would meet an exemption or a special rule."
The agency said Section 24.24(e)(2)(iii) says fees are to be paid quarterly subject to the section's exemptions and special rules. Stoute-Francois replied that CBP's rationale assumes she would know certain facts that don't appear in the question. Thus, the question "lacked the relevant details regarding the type and value of the cargo that would have allowed Plaintiff to know whether an exemption or special rule applied," the brief said.
The second question, Question 20, asked what information isn't a requirement on a commercial invoice. Stoute-Francois said the answer is the name of a responsible employee of the exporter who has knowledge, or can readily obtain knowledge, of the transaction, while CBP said the answer is an itemized list by name and amount of packing, cases, containers and inland freight to the port of exportation if included on the invoice.
The Georgia woman said the question similarly lacks enough information to choose an answer, since it "fails to account for the possibility that the required information would not appear on the commercial invoice, but instead on a substitute document." The question fails to account for the fact that a commercial invoice isn't required with the entry of merchandise, the brief said.
The third question at issue, Question 34, asks on what basis an article of base metal containing two or more base metals is classified. Stoute-Francois said it's classified by the metal that imparts the article's essential character, while CBP said it's classified by the metal that predominates by weight over each of the other metals.
Stoute-Francois said the question assumes the base metal at issue squarely fits under legal note seven of section XV, which says articles of base metal will be treated as articles of the base metal predominating by weight over the other metals. The brief said the question doesn't "state whether the article has an actual use, explain the precise chemical composition of the article, or provide whether the article also includes components," adding that this information is key for the right classification of the metal.
Lastly, Question 44 asked for the correct classification of an automatic baseball pitching machine. Stoute-Francois identified Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9506.69.2040 as the answer, which covers general sports equipment, while CBP said the answer is subheading 9503.00.0083, which covers "reduced-scale models."
The Georgia woman said the question doesn't indicate whether the good at issue is a reduced-scale model, since it only refers to the item as an "automatic baseball pitching machine." There's no indication the item is "anything but a full-sized, fully functioning automatic baseball pitching machine," the brief said.
CBP said the item is a reduced-scale model since it's a machine for use by children. In response, Stoute-Francois said the mere fact the item is used by children doesn't mean it's "necessarily reduced in scale." The question also assumes the test taker will know whether there's any difference between a pitching machine for children and one for adults.