In recent CBLE sittings this subject area has made up roughly 28–34% of the 80 scored questions, so our full practice exam gives it 25 of the 80.
The full bank holds 365 questions for this subject area, each with an explanation citing the provision that decides it. Below are 8 free questions with answers.
The provisions the questions in this subject area cite most often.
Which of the following is NOT an example of a good "wholly obtained or produced" in the United States?
Why: 19 CFR 102.1(g) defines a good "wholly obtained or produced" in a country to include, among other things, a mineral good extracted in that country, a vegetable or plant good harvested there, and goods taken from space by that country - which covers the West Virginia coal, the Iowa vegetable and the moon rock retrieved by a U.S. astronaut. A car assembled in Ohio from imported parts contains foreign materials, so by definition it is not wholly obtained or produced; its origin must instead be determined under the applicable tariff-shift or substantial-transformation rules.
A broker asks to file one entry summary covering five separate entries of identical goods for one consignee arriving on the same vessel. The first entry is dated March 3 and the last entry is dated March 15. Under 19 CFR 142.17, may the entries be consolidated?
Why: Paragraph (a) of 19 CFR 142.17 imposes six cumulative conditions, and the one that fails here is 19 CFR 142.17(a)(4): no more than 1 week may elapse between the date of the first entry and the date of the last. March 3 to March 15 is twelve days, so the consolidation dies on that condition alone. A shared consignee and a shared carrier do satisfy (a)(3) and (a)(2), and the filing deadline in (a)(5) is 10 working days rather than 30 calendar days or 5 working days, but none of that rescues a span that breaks the one-week limit.
A warehouse entry covers five separate withdrawals, the last of which is made on June 10. From what date does the one-year period for liquidation by operation of law run as to that warehouse entry?
Why: A warehouse entry gets its own trigger under 19 CFR 159.11(a), which measures the one year from 'the date of entry of the merchandise, or the date of final withdrawal of all merchandise covered by a warehouse entry.' The second branch is the one that governs here, so the clock starts June 10 rather than at filing or at the first withdrawal. This alternative trigger is easy to miss because it is folded into the same clause as the ordinary date-of-entry rule rather than given a paragraph of its own. Note also the applicability limit in 19 CFR 159.11(b): this section and 19 CFR 159.12 apply to entries of merchandise for consumption or withdrawals of merchandise for consumption made on or after April 1, 1979.
Under 19 CFR 12.39, after a U.S. International Trade Commission determination under section 337 is referred to the President, within what period may the President disapprove that determination for policy reasons?
Why: The 60-day figure sits mid-way through a long unbroken block of text at 19 CFR 12.39(a), which is precisely why it is easy to skate past on an open-book search. The President may disapprove a Commission determination for policy reasons on or before the close of a 60-day period beginning on the day after the day he receives a copy of it; if he does not, the determination becomes final on the day after the close of that period. Paragraph (a) is also the destination whenever a later paragraph refers to a determination becoming final, so it repays reading in full rather than skimming for a number.
If CBP determines a bond is inadequate, how many days does the principal have from the date of notification to remedy the deficiency?
Why: 19 CFR 113.13(c) provides that CBP periodically reviews each bond for adequacy and that, if CBP determines a bond is inadequate, 'the principal and surety will be promptly notified in writing' and 'the principal will have 15 days from the date of notification to remedy the deficiency.' The 30-, 60- and 90-day options do not appear in the provision. Note also that under the same paragraph CBP may require additional security in the form of a cash deposit or single transaction bond for any and all of the principal's transactions until the deficiency is cured.
A shipment of woven cotton shirts is released from CBP custody on March 1. On June 15 the Center director finds that the country of origin was not accurately represented under § 102.21 and demands return of the goods to CBP custody. The importer does not comply. What is the consequence?
Why: The 180-day conditional release period created by 19 CFR 141.113(b) is what makes a June 15 demand timely on a March 1 release, and that same paragraph fixes the sanction: failure to comply with a demand made under it "shall result in the assessment of liquidated damages equal to the value of the merchandise involved," notwithstanding paragraph (h) of the section and 19 CFR 113.62(n)(1). Treble damages do exist in this section, but at paragraph (c)(3), and also at (i) for restricted or prohibited merchandise and alcoholic beverages for FDA-regulated products, and the 30-day limit on marking demands sits at paragraph (a)(2). Both are easy to grab by mistake when scanning a long section for a number.
An aircraft required to enter under 19 CFR 122.41 arrives carrying commercial cargo, and neither the unaccompanied baggage nor the in-transit accompanied baggage provisions apply. Which statement about the air cargo manifest is correct?
Why: The first half of 19 CFR 122.48(a) relieves the carrier and the second half takes much of the relief back: the manifest "need not be filed or retained aboard the aircraft," yet "an air cargo manifest for all cargo on board must otherwise be available for production upon demand." The relief concerns filing and carriage, not existence, which rules out treating the manifest as dispensable altogether. That paragraph also opens with an exception for paragraphs (d) and (e), which the stem forecloses, and it still requires the general declaration under § 122.43.
A liquid sauce is prepared in Japan by mixing raw materials from Japan, China, Thailand, and the United States. The raw materials from Japan are water, liquid sugar, salt, apple pulp, orange pulp, bonito extract, squid extract, citric acid, konbu, and paprika. The raw materials from China are garlic, fermented vegetables, chili pepper and ginger. The raw materials from the United States are soy protein hydrolysate and xanthum gum. The raw material from Thailand is s-inosinate. What is the country of origin marking on the bottles of sauce, all of which are to be shipped to the United States and sold in United States grocery stores?
Why: 19 CFR 134.1(b) defines country of origin as the country of manufacture, production, or growth, and provides that further work or material added in another country must effect a **substantial transformation** to shift origin to that other country. Mixing the many raw materials from Japan, China, Thailand, and the United States into a finished liquid sauce in Japan is a substantial transformation producing a new article with a new name, character, and use, so the sauce is a product of Japan and the bottles are marked 'Product of Japan.' No single ingredient-sourcing country - China, Thailand, or the United States - becomes the origin merely by supplying components.
Manifest is a $49 bank built on CBP's recent published exams, not a taught course. Here is how it compares with the CBLE courses candidates usually consider, including where they are the better choice. See the comparison with Global Training Center, ST&R, LACBFFA exam preparation course and others.