1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ITC Issues Customs Value First Sale Rule Report – Are Importers Missing Duty Savings Opportunities?

ITC Issues Customs Value First Sale Rule Report – Are Importers Missing Duty Savings Opportunities?

Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.07.10

As required by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently issued a report on the use of the first sale rule for customs valuation of imports. Under the first sale rule importers may lower duties by using the first sales price for goods, which are sold multiple times before importation, to determine duty liability. For example, an item may be produced in China, sold to a middleman in Hong Kong, and in turn sold to a buyer/importer in Los Angeles. The first sale rule allows the U.S. importer to declare the product's value, for import duty purposes, as the price of the original China-Hong Kong transaction. Because the value attributable to earlier sales may be lower than that assigned to later sales, use of the first sale rule can lower the duties paid by importers.

In 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) attempted to eliminate the judicially mandated first sale rule, but CBP's efforts met significant industry and Congressional opposition. As a result of this opposition, the Act prevented CBP from taking further action to revoke the first sale rule until at least January 1, 2011, and required importers to provide import data on the use of the first sale rule to enable the ITC to complete its report. The data presented in the ITC report suggests that many importers may not be taking advantage of the potential duty savings opportunities offered by the first sale rule.

The report examined U.S. imports between September 1, 2008, to August 31, 2009, and its key findings include:

  • Of the $1.63 trillion in total U.S. imports, $38.5 billion, or about 2.4 percent, were imported using the "first sale rule."
  • Approximately 8.5 percent of all U.S. importers (over 23,000) use the first sale rule.
  • The top five industries using the first sale rule by total import value are - machinery, transportation and computers (31 percent), electrical equipment (15 percent), textile, apparel and footwear (14 percent), raw materials (excluding plastics and rubber, 13 percent), and food and agriculture (12 percent).
  • Most importers in each industry, however, do not use the first sale rule. The greatest percentage of first sale use in the top two industries (by value) are for textile, apparel, and footwear (just over 5 percent), and food and agriculture (approximately 4.9 percent). Goods imported in these industries tend to have the highest duty rates, thereby conferring the greatest benefits on first sale rule users.
  • The ITC was unable to quantify revenue impact (duty savings) or economic impact of the first sale rule.

Despite the small percentage of importers using the first sale rule, eliminating this rule would adversely impact importers who currently use the rule, and deprive other importers of the duty saving benefits that this rule offers. Certain importers may not use the first sale rule because it is difficult to meet the legal requirements to comply. Crowell & Moring has assisted many importers in taking advantage of first sale rule through its global duty recovery program. Please contact John Brew or Dan Cannistra if you have any questions about the ITC report, or potential first sale rule benefits.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....