In recent CBLE sittings this subject area has made up roughly 15–21% of the 80 scored questions, so our full practice exam gives it 14 of the 80.
The full bank holds 116 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.
An importer of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order does not file a reimbursement certification with CBP before liquidation. Under 19 CFR 351.402, what may the Secretary conclude?
Why: A presumption is created by 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3): the Secretary may presume from an importer's failure to file the certificate required in paragraph (f)(2) that the exporter or producer paid or reimbursed the antidumping duties or countervailing duties. The practical consequence under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(1)(i) is deduction of that amount in calculating export price or constructed export price, which raises the margin. Worth noting for the open-book search is that a late certification is not automatically fatal, because 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2)(iii) allows CBP to accept one in accordance with its protest procedures under 19 U.S.C. 1514 unless otherwise directed.
A domestic producer that qualifies as an interested party wants to allege that three unrelated importers are each evading the same antidumping duty order. How must it proceed?
Why: One sentence in 19 CFR 165.11(a) decides this: each allegation must be limited to one importer, but an interested party may file multiple allegations. Three importers therefore means three allegations, filed electronically through the appropriate portal on CBP's online e-Allegations system or through any other method approved or designated by CBP. Consolidation does exist, but it runs the other way - it is CBP's tool for combining separate allegations, exercised at CBP's discretion under 19 CFR 165.13, not a substitute for filing them separately in the first place. The one-importer limit is easy to overlook because it appears mid-paragraph, after the filing-method instructions and before the cross-reference to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d).
A CBP officer proposes two practices. On one entry, two possible values are computed and the higher of the two is adopted. On a second entry, a floor is set below which no shipment of that commodity will be appraised. How are these two practices treated?
Why: Each practice is separately condemned, the first by 19 CFR 152.108(b) and the second by 19 CFR 152.108(f); both paragraphs were re-read before this attribution was made. Paragraph (b) forbids appraisement on the basis of 'a system that provides for the appraisement of imported merchandise at the higher of two alternative values,' which is precisely the first practice. Paragraph (f) forbids 'minimum values for appraisement,' which is precisely the floor described in the second. Importer consent is irrelevant - 19 CFR 152.108 is framed as an absolute list of bases on which imported merchandise may not be appraised, with no waiver mechanism anywhere in the section.
Which of the following is a limitation on the use of transaction value for imported merchandise?
Why: 19 CFR 152.103(j)(1)(ii) makes transaction value unusable if the sale or the price actually paid or payable is subject to a condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined, and Interpretative Note 2 to 152.103(k)(2) gives the precise example: the price of the imported merchandise is dependent upon the price or prices at which the buyer sells other merchandise to the seller. That is option A. The other three are expressly permitted: 152.103(j)(1)(i) tolerates restrictions imposed by law or limiting the geographic resale area, 152.103(j)(1)(iv) accepts a related-party price where the relationship did not influence it, and the interpretative note to 152.103(k)(1) uses a restriction on resale before a fixed date as an example of a restriction that does not defeat transaction value.
A foreign producer's method of accounting already carries the apportioned value of a tooling assist inside its reported cost of materials, fabrication and other processing. The importer asks how the assist should be handled in building computed value.
Why: Duplication is addressed head-on by 19 CFR 152.106(d), which observes that depending on the producer's method of accounting the value of assists may already be included in the producer's cost of materials, fabrication, and other processing, or in the general expenses, and states that where duplication occurs a separate amount for the value of the assists will not be added, because it is not intended that any component of computed value be included twice. The fourth option overshoots in the other direction: the same paragraph opens by confirming that computed value will include an amount equal to the apportioned value of any assists used in production, so assists are not categorically excluded - they are simply not counted a second time. Paragraph (d) also carries a limit worth remembering: engineering, development, artwork, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken in the United States are included only to the extent their value has been charged to the producer.
CBP concludes an EAPA investigation and makes its determination as to evasion. What evidentiary standard governs that determination, and how soon must CBP send the parties a summary of it?
Why: 19 CFR 165.27(a) supplies the standard and 19 CFR 165.27(b) supplies the deadline, and both paragraphs were re-read before this pairing was written. Paragraph (a) requires that upon conclusion of the investigation CBP make a determination based on substantial evidence as to whether covered merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the United States through evasion. Paragraph (b) then requires that no later than five business days after making that determination CBP send, via email or any other method approved or designated by CBP, a summary of the determination limited to publicly available information to the parties to the investigation. Both halves matter: 'substantial evidence' is the standard, and the summary is limited to publicly available information rather than being the full determination.
An allegation by an interested party that an importer of covered merchandise has evaded antidumping or countervailing (AD/CVD) duty order under the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 (EAPA) must include all of the following information EXCEPT:
Why: 19 CFR 165.11(b) lists what an EAPA allegation must contain: the name of the interested party and any filing agent with an email address, an explanation of how the party qualifies as an interested party under 19 CFR 165.1, the name and address of the importer against whom the allegation is brought, a description of the covered merchandise, the applicable AD/CVD orders, and the information reasonably available to support the allegation. What paragraph (b)(2) requires is an explanation of the alleging party's own interested-party status, not an explanation of any relationship between that party and the importer, so option D is the item not required. The description of the merchandise, the applicable orders, and the importer's name and address correspond to (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(3).
Which statement is FALSE with respect to the applicable rates of duty?
Why: 19 CFR 141.68 fixes the "time of entry" that determines the applicable rates of duty, and its subsections cover the situations in options A-C: 141.68(g) sets the time of entry for warehouse withdrawals for consumption, and 141.68(f) sets it for informal mail entries at the time a CBP employee completes preparing the entry documentation. For quota-class merchandise the rate turns on presentation of the entry summary or withdrawal for consumption in proper form (19 CFR 132.11a; 132.1(d)), not on liquidation. Option D is therefore the FALSE statement. ⚠ Law changed after this sitting: 19 CFR 145.12(b)(2) was rewritten by CBP Dec. 26-13, "Indefinite Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Mail Shipments and New Postal Informal Entry Process" [91 FR 37801, June 24, 2026], effective July 24, 2026. Under current 145.12(b)(2) a mail informal entry is dutiable at the rates in effect when preparation of the entry is completed, and preparation is completed when the entry is properly transmitted to CBP by the filer; the requirement that a CBP employee prepare the entry was removed. CBP's keyed answer above (option D) is correct for the May 2024 examination and is reproduced unaltered. Students should note that option C, a true statement as at the sitting, now conflicts with current 19 CFR 145.12(b)(2). 19 CFR 141.68(f) was not amended by that rule and still fixes the time of entry for an informal mail entry at completion by a CBP employee, so the two provisions currently read inconsistently.
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.