U.S. Imports: Unit Values Vary Widely for Identically Classified
Commodities (Letter Report, 04/26/95, GAO/GGD-95-90).

Importers bringing a shipment of goods into the United States must
provide information to the Customs Service showing the quantity and
overall value of each commodity being imported. This information allows
Customs to collect duties and fees; enforce any quantitative
restrictions, such as import quotas; and develop information that can be
used by the Census Bureau to compile trade statistics.  In recent years,
these statistics have been a cause for concern because unit values for
the same type of commodity can vary over a wide range when they ar used
to calculate a value per unit imported.  This report reviews the
documentation of the importation of eight classifications of commodities
for fiscal year 1992 and determines (1) how widely unit values for
identical types of commodities varied and (2) why such variations
occurred.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-95-90
     TITLE:  U.S. Imports: Unit Values Vary Widely for Identically 
             Classified Commodities
      DATE:  04/26/95
   SUBJECT:  Customs administration
             Computerized information systems
             Systems evaluation
             Import regulation
             Tariffs
             Data collection operations
             Data integrity
             Trade regulation
             Import restriction
             Commodity marketing
IDENTIFIER:  Customs Service Automated Commercial System
             Census Bureau Import Detailed Data Base
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives

April 1995

U.S.  IMPORTS - UNIT VALUES VARY
WIDELY FOR IDENTICALLY CLASSIFIED
COMMODITIES

GAO/GGD-95-90

Unit Values Vary Widely


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ACS - Automated Commercial System
  FIU - Florida International University
  HTS - Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-259233

April 26, 1995

The Honorable Philip M.  Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Importers bringing a shipment of goods into the United States must
provide information to the Customs Service that shows the quantity
and overall value of each commodity being imported.  Among other
things, this information allows Customs to collect duties and fees;
enforce any quantitative restrictions, such as import quotas; and
develop information that can be used by the Bureau of the Census to
develop trade statistics.  In recent years, these statistics have
been a cause for concern because unit values for the same type of
commodity can vary over a wide range when they are used to calculate
a value per unit imported. 

The former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee
on Ways and Means, requested that we determine why unit values for
the same types of imported commodities vary.  In this regard, we
agreed to review documentation on the importation of eight
classifications of commodities for fiscal year 1992 and to determine
(1) how widely unit values for identical types of commodities varied
and (2) why such variations occurred.  This report discusses the
results of our review and is addressed to you because these matters
fall within the jurisdiction of your subcommittee.  As requested, the
appendixes include extensive analyses and comparisons of the unit
values for each of the eight commodities we examined. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Our analysis of eight selected commodities for fiscal year 1992
showed that unit values for these identically classified imports can
and do vary widely.  For example, we found facsimile machines valued
from $5.62 each to $147,292 each, hypodermic syringes valued from
$0.01 each to $3,485 each, and scrap gold valued from $0.02 per gram
to $4,368 per gram--the latter being more than the market price of
pure gold at the time. 

We found two underlying causes for the variations in unit value. 
First, there were variations that resulted from commodity
classifications so broad that the same code could cover products of
different types, quality, and intended use.  For example, the
facsimile machines category covered everything from inexpensive
home-use units to components of complex communications systems.  We
examined the supporting documentation for 10 facsimile machine
transactions and found machines that were correctly valued as low as
$264.14 per unit and as high as $26,425 per unit. 

The second cause for the variations was errors--such as
misclassifying the product or entering the wrong quantity or total
value--made by the filer when entering data into Customs' Automated
Commercial System (ACS).  For example, facsimile machines valued at
$5.62 each turned out to be spare parts, while one valued at $147,292
actually was a telegraph machine.  Hypodermic syringes valued at
$0.23 each actually had a value of $2.25 each because the filer
incorrectly entered the quantity as 600,000 units instead of 60,000
units.  A shipment of gold was valued at $4,368 a gram--more than 379
times the price of pure gold--because the quantity of 2.05 kilograms
was incorrectly recorded as 2 grams.  The actual value of the scrap
gold was $4.26 a gram, less than half of the then market price of
$11.54 a gram for pure gold.  Using Census-developed parameters, ACS
screens the filers' entries to detect possible unit value errors that
could adversely affect the quality of the trade data.  However,
because the parameters are so broad, ACS detects only errors
involving extremely high or low unit values. 

The errors we noted had little effect on quotas, duties, and fees for
the 80 transactions we analyzed because these are generally based on
aggregate rather than unit values.  Because we did not randomly
sample commodities or transactions, we cannot generalize about the
overall level of errors in the Import Detailed Data Base from which
Census generates trade statistics.  However, the high number of
errors we found (errors in 45 of the 80 transactions) indicates a
need to improve the accuracy of filers entering data into ACS. 
Otherwise, the errors could threaten the accuracy of U.S.  trade
statistics and the ability of Customs to continue using unit value
ranges as the only mechanism to screen transactions for errors or
illegal activities.  Adding narrower unit value ranges to ACS would
allow filers to identify and correct more errors during data entry. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

More than 14,000 different types of commodities are imported into the
United States, involving more than 15 million separate shipments or
transactions each year.  In 1992 and 1993, U.S.  imports were valued
at $532.7 billion and $580.5 billion, respectively. 

Customs has the primary responsibility for processing imports to
ensure that they do not violate U.S.  laws and regulations.  Also,
Customs is responsible for ensuring that duties and fees are paid
and, with more than $21.6 billion collected in fiscal year 1993, is
second only to the Internal Revenue Service in its revenue-producing
function. 

Customs also accumulates basic information on imports in its ACS
database for oversight and statistical purposes.  For about 94
percent of the ACS entries, importers or licensed brokers--referred
to as "filers"--electronically enter data directly into ACS and
generally follow this with a manually prepared entry summary.  For
the remaining 6 percent of the ACS entries, the filers elect not to
file the entry electronically, and Customs must enter the information
into ACS from the manually prepared entry summaries. 

Periodically, Census extracts data from ACS for use in developing and
publishing trade statistics.  The Census data are available in two
forms.  The first and most comprehensive is the Import Detailed Data
Base, which contains information on individual transactions and is
restricted to official use.  The second consists of various reports
and publications that summarize trade statistics and are made
available to the public. 

In 1990, two professors at Florida International University (FIU),
using the summary Census data, found wide variations in the unit
values for seemingly identical commodities.  For example, the
professors found that the unit value for razors varied from $0.03 to
$34.81 each.  They also found that emeralds from Panama had an
average unit value of $974.58 a carat, compared with $5.29 a carat
for those from Brazil.  Other commodities showed similar disparities. 

As the results of the FIU study became known, concerns were raised
that the differences in unit value could be the result of criminal
activities, such as money laundering.  For example, a person in the
United States could transfer money to another country simply by
paying far too much for an imported product in an exchange that would
otherwise appear legitimate. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

As discussed with the Subcommittee, we determined that statistical
sampling of a database as large as ACS' was impractical, given the
time constraints of our work.  Instead, we agreed to judgmentally
select eight commodities for detailed examination.  We selected these
commodities from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United
States, which classifies and describes all commodities subject to
importation and lists the applicable duties, fees, and quotas for
each commodity.  We selected a broad variety of commodities that
generally had narrow definitions and provided some overlap with
previous studies by Customs and FIU.  Three of the eight commodities
were subject to quotas. 

To meet our first objective of determining how widely unit values for
identical types of commodities varied, we used the Import Detailed
Data Base for fiscal year 1992 to compute and analyze unit values and
to develop statistical profiles for each of the eight commodities. 
To meet our second objective of determining why these variations
occurred, we selected 10 transactions across a wide range of values
under each of the 8 commodities.  For each of these 80 transactions,
we then examined supporting documentation, such as entry summaries,
invoices, and shipping manifests, to verify that the commodity was
appropriately classified and to recalculate the unit values that
should have been reported.  Our objectives, scope, and methodology
are discussed in more detail in appendix I. 

Appendix II provides a summary comparison of the commodities we
selected for analysis.  Appendixes III through X show the results of
these analyses by commodity, including (1) comparisons of high, low,
average, and median unit values by U.S.  port of entry, country of
export, importer, and method of transport; (2) quantities shipped and
unit values at each decile across the range of values; and (3) a
comparison of the unit value we computed with those in the ACS
database for the selected transactions. 

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from Customs
and Census.  Their comments are evaluated at the end of this letter
and are reprinted in appendixes XI and XII. 

We did our work between November 1993 and August 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   UNIT VALUES OF IMPORTED
   COMMODITIES VARIED WIDELY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Just as the FIU study, we found wide variations in unit values for
transactions within the same commodity classification.  Table 1 shows
the highest, lowest, and average unit values for each of the eight
commodities.  Appendixes III through X show the unit values for each
commodity across percentile ranges and provide further comparisons by
U.S.  port of entry, country of origin, importer, and method of
shipment. 



                           Table 1
           
            Fiscal Year 1992 Unit Values for Eight
                     Imported Commodities


                                                      Averag
Commodity (unit of measure)             High     Low       e
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Scrap gold (gram)                     $4,368   $0.02   $3.75
                                         .00
Pantyhose (dozen pair)                1,267.  0.00\a    6.22
                                          50
Facsimile machine (each)              147,29    5.62  409.30
                                        2.00
Hypodermic syringe (each)             3,485.    0.01    0.13
                                          00
Raw cane sugar (kilogram)               1.75    0.43    0.54
Wood dowel rods (meter)               3,809.  0.00\b    0.14
                                          00
Tire cord fabric (kilogram)            59.78    1.21    3.70
Unsweetened cocoa (kilogram)          234.43  0.00\c    1.12
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Some unit values were $0.00 because no quantity was entered.  The
$0.52 value was the lowest unit value for a pantyhose transaction
where the quantity was shown. 

\b Wood dowel rods had a low unit value of $0.004. 

\c Some unit values were $0.00 because no quantity was entered.  The
$0.11 value was the lowest unit value for an unsweetened cocoa
transaction where the quantity was shown. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 

As seen from table 1, variations in unit value were the norm for the
eight commodities we examined.  Raw cane sugar had the most narrow
unit value range and, even then, the highest value of $1.75 a
kilogram was four times the lowest value of $0.43 a kilogram.  At the
other extreme, the high unit value of $3,809 per meter for wood dowel
rods was 952,250 times the lowest unit value of $0.004 per meter. 

Some unit values appeared implausible.  Such was the case with
facsimile machines valued at $5.62 each, pantyhose for $1,267.50 a
dozen pair, or hypodermic syringes as low as $0.01 and as high as
$3,485 each.  Also, 185 shipments of scrap gold, which accounted for
783,380 grams (or 4.3 percent of the total quantity), each had a unit
value of more than $11.60 a gram--the price of pure gold at the time. 
Overall unit values for scrap gold ranged from $0.02 to $4,368 a
gram, with an average unit value of $3.75 a gram. 


   BROAD COMMODITY DEFINITIONS AND
   DATA ENTRY ERRORS CAUSED WIDE
   VARIATIONS IN UNIT VALUES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In examining the supporting documentation for individual
transactions, we found two causes for variations in unit values. 
First, the commodity classifications used by Customs were so broad
that a particular code could cover a wide assortment of products with
natural variations in value.  In practice, Customs can do little
about the wide commodity definitions, since they are determined
through a combination of law, international agreement, and agreements
among various U.S.  agencies, including Customs. 

Second, filers frequently made errors in entering the commodity code,
quantity, or total value into ACS.  While Customs could correct these
errors if it knew of them, the current parameters used to detect unit
value anomalies are so broad that they identify only those errors
involving extremely high or low unit values. 


      COMMODITY DEFINITIONS WERE
      BROAD
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

In coding commodities for entry, Customs requires filers to choose
from the more than 14,000 codes specified by the HTS.  The HTS is
subdivided into sections, chapters, and specific commodity types. 
The codes range from 4 to 10 digits in specificity, depending on the
degree to which a particular commodity is subdivided.  For example,
facsimile machines are at the 10-digit level (8517.82.00.40) under
"electrical machinery and equipment" (Chapter 85), the 4-digit level
(8517) under "electrical apparatus for line telephony or telegraphy,"
and the 6-digit level (8517.82) under "telegraphic."

Even with the large number of specialized codes, commodities within a
particular HTS classification can vary by type, quality, and intended
use.  As shown in the transaction analyses in table 8 of appendixes
III through X, these variations in products lead to variations in
unit values.  For example, the facsimile machine classification
described in appendix V covers everything from inexpensive and
mass-produced, home-use models to machines that are highly
specialized and designed to be used in complex and sophisticated
communications systems.  We analyzed the supporting documentation for
the 10 facsimile machine transactions and found machines that were
properly valued as low as $264.14 per unit and as high as $26,425 per
unit. 

Similarly, the pantyhose classification discussed in appendix IV is
broad enough to include such diverse products as pantyhose of
differing grades and sizes, tights, and support hose.  For the 10
pantyhose transactions, we analyzed the supporting documentation and
found products that were properly valued from as low as $3.50 a dozen
pair to as high as $156.59 a dozen pair.  Two of the transactions,
with unit values of $156.59 and $66.64 a dozen pair, were special
orders intended for promotional uses. 

The scrap gold classification is broad because it covers gold waste
and scrap, regardless of the weight, purity, or metals to which it is
clad.  For example, we examined the supporting documentation for one
transaction where the commodity was described on the invoice as
"scrap gold for refining" and was properly valued at $9.26 a gram. 
We examined the supporting documentation for another transaction and
found the scrap gold was properly valued at $0.22 a gram and,
according to the invoice, consisted of gold and brass "floor sweeps."

The U.S.  International Trade Commission publishes the HTS, following
guidelines set by law, international agreement, and agreements among
U.S.  agencies.  As one of these agencies, Customs can only recommend
changes in the level of specificity within individual HTS
classifications.  Customs officials said they would not necessarily
make changes in the definitions even if they could do so.  According
to these officials, while narrower product definitions would reduce
the range of unit values within a particular commodity code, the
higher level of specificity also would increase the number of codes
with which Customs and the filers would have to contend. 


      FILERS ENTERED ERRONEOUS
      DATA INTO ACS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Another reason unit values for imports varied so widely is that the
Import Detailed Data Base contains errors.  Such errors occur when
the filer enters the wrong HTS code, quantity, or total value into
ACS and the data are not corrected prior to being extracted by
Census.  We examined the supporting documentation for 80
transactions, and we found that 45 transactions contained one or more
types of errors. 


         WRONG HTS CODE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2.1

For 14 of the 45 transactions with errors, the filer entered the
wrong HTS code.  Thus, while the unit value may have been computed
properly, it was entered under the wrong commodity classification. 
The following are examples of valuation errors created by the filer
having entered the wrong HTS code: 

  Four of the 10 facsimile machine transactions were wrongly coded
     because the products shipped were not facsimile machines.  Two
     of these transactions, with unit values of $492.84 and $5.62
     each, actually were for spare parts.  A third transaction, with
     a unit value of $29.23 each, was for a shipment of modems.  The
     fourth transaction--and by far the largest single unit value we
     analyzed--was for a telegraph machine with a unit value of
     $147,292. 

  Three of the 10 raw cane sugar transactions--accounting for 64.7
     percent of the total volume shipped during 1992--were wrongly
     coded.  Since the product did not meet the commodity definition
     of raw sugar, it should have been listed under another cane
     sugar category. 

  Three shipments of unsweetened cocoa, with unit values of $234.43,
     $2.62, and $0.24 a kilogram, were wrongly coded.  Even though
     the products contained cocoa, one shipment was a specialty
     concentrate and the other two shipments were cocoa cake.  Each
     type of product has its own HTS classification. 


         WRONG QUANTITY OR TOTAL
         VALUE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2.2

For 36 of the 45 transactions with errors, the filer entered either
the wrong quantity, the wrong total value, or both the wrong quantity
and total value into ACS.  Five of these 36 transactions contained
errors because the filer had also entered the wrong HTS.  The
following are examples of the types of quantity and value errors we
found: 

  On a shipment of hypodermic syringes, the filer showed the quantity
     as 600,000 when it should have been 60,000.  Since the total
     value was properly shown as $135,000, the unit value was
     computed as $0.23 each when the correct unit value was $2.25
     each. 

  On a shipment of wood dowel rods, the quantity was incorrectly
     shown as 2 meters when it should have been 4,618 meters.  This
     resulted in the computation of the unit value as $3,809 per
     meter when the correct value was $1.65 per meter.  The opposite
     occurred on another shipment, when the quantity was shown as
     2,709,190 meters instead of 225,765 meters.  Thus, the unit
     value should have been $0.05 per meter instead of $0.004 per
     meter. 

  A shipment of gold had a unit value of $4,368 a gram, or 379 times
     the going rate for pure gold at the time, because the filer had
     entered the wrong quantity.  The supporting invoice showed the
     quantity as 2.05 kilograms and, apparently, the filer showed
     this as 2 grams in making the entry.  The correct unit value of
     the scrap gold was $4.26 a gram, or less than half of the then
     market price of $11.54 a gram for pure gold. 

  Eighteen shipments of unsweetened cocoa showed a unit value of
     $0.00 a kilogram because, in each case, no quantity was shown on
     the Import Detailed Data Base.  We analyzed the supporting
     documentation on one of these shipments and found that the
     quantity should have been 8,164 kilograms.  Since the total
     value was properly entered at $14,940, the unit value should
     have been $1.83 a kilogram. 


   EFFECTS OF FILER ERRORS ON
   REVENUES, TRADE STATISTICS, AND
   CUSTOMS' ABILITY TO DETECT
   ERRORS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

For the transactions we examined, the effect of the filer errors on
revenues was minimal.  However, the errors raise questions about the
accuracy of trade statistics and Customs' ability to use unit values
as a screening mechanism in ACS to detect data errors or to identify
problems, such as quota violations or improper payment of duties and
fees. 


      FILER ERRORS WE FOUND DID
      NOT RESULT IN REVENUE LOSS
      BUT DID AFFECT TRADE
      STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The filer errors we found had only a minimal effect on revenues.  Of
the 45 transactions we found with errors, we identified only 5
transactions where we could determine the duties or fees were wrong,
with a net overcollection of $114.57.  Each of these incorrect duties
or fees was caused by a quantity or value error.  We could not
determine the effect on duties for two other transactions because the
supporting documentation did not contain sufficient information to
identify the HTS code that should have been entered. 

None of the classification errors resulted in a dollar loss because
the duties and fees actually paid were equal to or greater than what
should have been paid.  Similarly, most of the remaining errors
involved quantity, whereas duties and fees typically are tied to
total value. 

Quantity errors could be a problem where quotas are concerned, and
three of the commodities we selected--raw cane sugar, tire cord
fabric, and pantyhose--were subject to quotas.  Again, however, the
errors we found did not raise concerns that quotas may have been
exceeded significantly.  In two cases, the quantities were overstated
because of errors, so the quota was not exceeded.  In the third case,
the quantity understated was minimal, amounting to only 0.026 percent
of the total quantity shipped for the year. 

Errors in the Import Detailed Data Base can affect trade statistics. 
When the filer enters the wrong quantity or value into ACS, the
effect is limited to the HTS classification being examined.  In those
cases where the wrong HTS is entered, the quantity and value data
will be in error for both the classification that was entered by
mistake and the classification that should have been entered. 

Since we did not randomly sample commodities or transactions, we
cannot project the overall effect of filer errors on trade
statistics.  However, raw cane sugar, one of the commodities we
selected, had only 32 transactions for 1992.  We analyzed 10 of the
32 transactions and found that 3 transactions were improperly coded. 
The three transactions accounted for 64.6 percent of the total
quantity and 55.7 percent of the total value reported.  The effect of
these three classification errors was an overstatement of both
quantity and total value in the raw cane sugar category.  If not for
these 3 errors, the total quantity would have been 931,237 instead of
the reported 2,632,911 and the total value would have been $630,491
instead of $1,422,070.  Presumably, the categories that should have
been entered were understated by like amounts. 


      CENSUS UNIT VALUE RANGES ARE
      TOO BROAD TO DETECT ALL
      FILER ERRORS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

As a means to detect potential errors in the trade data drawn from
the Import Detailed Data Base, Census developed a series of screening
parameters that provide a warning that the information entered is
outside of the norm.  Two types of warnings involve unit value--one
warning if it is too high and one warning if it is too low.  In
effect, the warnings provide a range within which the unit value
should fall for a particular commodity code.  Table 2 shows the
Census unit value ranges for each of the eight commodities we
selected for analysis. 



                           Table 2
           
             Unit Value Ranges for Eight Selected
             Commodities During Fiscal Year 1992


Commodity (unit of measure)                     High     Low
--------------------------------------------  ------  ------
Scrap gold (gram)                             $28.00   $0.10
Pantyhose (dozen pair)                        270.00    2.00
Facsimile machine (each)                      28,000   10.00
                                                 .00
Hypodermic syringes (each)                    500.00    0.01
Raw cane sugar (kilogram)                       1.49    0.07
Wood dowel rods (meter)                         1.99    0.01
Tire cord fabric (kilogram)                    25.00    0.96
Unsweetened cocoa (kilogram)                   13.39    0.18
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Rounded to nearest cent. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data. 

The Census ranges are integrated into Customs' ACS, which is to use
them to screen each automated entry for unit value anomalies.  When
the unit value of a particular entry falls above or below the Census
range, ACS is to first warn the filer, who then can review the data
entered and make corrections if necessary.  If the numbers are
accurate, but outside the range, Customs is to require the filer to
provide supporting documentation with the paper entry summary that
follows the electronic submission.  ACS is also to alert Customs
officials that the entry is outside of the range, and they can review
the supporting documentation and ask the filer for more details, if
desired. 

A unit value outside the Census range does not necessarily mean that
Customs will review the transaction or make changes to its database. 
For example, Customs' procedures provide that no changes to the
Import Detailed Data Base generally are required for nontextile
commodities if the total value of the transaction is less than
$10,000 and no quota or voluntary restraint agreement is involved. 
Also, Customs officials may choose to take no action or correct only
portions of the data, such as those necessary to ensure the proper
collection of duties and fees. 

We examined the supporting documentation for 80 transactions and
found that 15 had unit values that were either higher or lower than
the Census ranges.  In all but 1 of these 15 cases, the filers had
made errors in entering the HTS code, the quantity, or the total
value into ACS.  The only transaction that fell outside of the Census
ranges, but was properly entered, was a shipment of tire cord fabric
in which the high unit value of $44.64 a kilogram was due to its
being a prototype item with a small quantity.  Customs officials had
not made corrections to the Import Detailed Data Base on any of the
14 transactions we examined and on which we found errors.  In some
cases, however, the officials had made corrections to the entry
summary documents, duties and fees charged, or other modules of ACS. 

One limitation in the Census ranges is that they are so broad they
are of little use in identifying any but the most extreme variations
from the norm.  This limitation occurs because the Census ranges were
designed to detect only those unit values it considered most likely
to be erroneous.  According to Census, a group of transactions
falling outside of a range may indicate the need to adjust the range
for a number of reasons, including natural value fluctuations, a
change in the diversity of the products included in a particular
category, incorrect reporting, or new products entering the trade
flow.  For the 8 commodities we selected, only 196 (or 1.8 percent)
of the 11,100 transactions in 1992 fell outside of the Census ranges. 


   CUSTOMS HAS ADDRESSED SOME
   VALUATION PROBLEMS AND IS
   CONSIDERING OTHER ACTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (P.L.  96-39) established one
primary valuation method--transaction value--and four secondary
methods for determining customs value.  Under the transaction value
method, Customs generally accepts the price agreed to between the
buyer and the seller as the basis for Customs' valuation as compared
to the more complex procedures of the prior valuation system.  In
practice, Customs officials said that Customs relies on the value
declared by the filer unless it has some reason to question the
value's accuracy. 

In 1990, Customs officials became concerned that valuation had become
a low priority within Customs and performed an internal valuation
review.  The study confirmed the need to re-emphasize valuation in
the entry process so that Customs would be better equipped to detect
importer attempts to manipulate valuation laws and regulations. 

Since its 1990 study, Customs has taken several courses of action to
address concerns on the valuation of imports.  These actions include
establishing valuation as one of six priorities in Customs' Trade
Enforcement Strategy Plan, creating a National Valuation Center to
help implement the Strategy Plan, increasing training of import
specialists on valuation issues, increasing analysis of valuation in
enforcement and compliance activities, and implementing an Entry
Summary Review Program to increase uniformity in the classification
and appraisement of imports. 

Customs' analyses of unit values identified the same types of
anomalies we found in our review.  For example, an enforcement
initiative in 1992, which studied shipments into the Miami District,
found asparagus valued at $7 a kilogram compared with a world average
of $1.38 a kilogram and dryers with a unit value range of $4.24 to
$746,723 each.  Similarly, in 1993, national import specialists in
New York analyzed 1,199 shipments of automatic typewriters and word
processing machines and found unit values that ranged from $1.83 to
$17,937 each, with an average of $124.67 each. 

Customs also identified some of the same causes for unit value
variations that we identified.  An April 1994 Quality Assurance
Review draft report, which dealt with the statistical reporting of
trade data, pointed out that the wrong HTS codes were entered in ACS
because (1) the codes were difficult to interpret and use, (2) the
filers did not have sufficient expertise in determining the proper
code, and (3) there were few disincentives for using the wrong code. 
The report also agreed that the Census ranges on valuation were too
broad.  The report made a number of recommendations for improving the
entry, use, and screening of valuation data.  These recommendations
were preliminary and had been disseminated for field comment; thus,
we did not evaluate them. 

Customs currently is redesigning its entry summary selectivity
process, which defines the procedures followed in selecting import
documentation for further review by import specialists.  This
redesign is part of a larger redesign effort, which also is
considering changes in the way cargo is selected for physical
inspection.  Customs officials have not yet determined the degree to
which valuation will be a part of the entry summary selectivity
process redesign, although they said it may play a prominent role. 

Customs officials said that changing the way the Census ranges are
used presents a dilemma.  The Customs officials said that they
realize the current ranges are too broad to detect many errors and
that they had considered narrowing them.  However, while narrowing
the ranges would identify more problem entries, this action also
would (1) create the need for reviewing more entries that do not have
a problem and (2) divert Customs' resources from other endeavors. 
Nevertheless, Customs officials said they will continue to look for
ways to improve the use of unit value screening mechanisms. 

We asked the Customs officials whether they had considered using two
sets of ranges--one fairly narrow set for the filer and a broader set
for Customs and Census.  Such a system would place more of the burden
on the filers who are making the errors and would encourage these
filers to use greater care when entering data.  Since Customs and
Census could continue to use the broader ranges for their own
purposes, any increased workload for the agencies would be minimized. 

One of the commodities we selected for analysis, hypodermic syringes,
can be used as a hypothetical example of how narrower ranges may be
beneficial.  At the time of our review, the acceptable Census range
for this commodity was from $0.01 to $500 each, with only 2 of the
417 transactions for the year falling outside of this range. 
However, had the Census range been $0.05 to $6.68 each--the unit
values at the 20th and 80th percentiles for all transactions during
fiscal year 1992 ranked by descending unit values--125 of the 417
transactions would have fallen outside of the range.  Included in the
transactions that would have been questioned under the new range, but
not the old range, was a shipment of 600 syringes with a unit value
of $95.35 each.  We determined that this shipment should have been
recorded at a quantity of 319,800 and a unit value of $0.18.  While
we could not determine how many other transactions were in error, we
did note that a total of 24 transactions had a unit value of more
than $40 each, which Customs officials said is improbable for a
single syringe. 

Customs officials said that, while a two-tiered set of unit value
ranges merited consideration, they had not considered such a process
and were not sure whether it could be done within the current system. 
The officials planned to study the feasibility of a two-tiered
process, but they had not done so at the completion of our work. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

On the basis of our analysis of eight commodities imported during
1992, unit values did vary widely, with the highest values ranging
from 4 times to almost 1 million times the lowest values.  Certain
unit values--such as pantyhose priced as low as $0.00 a dozen pair
and as high as $1,267.50 a dozen pair--appeared implausible. 

We found two primary causes for these wide-ranging values.  First,
the commodity definitions themselves may be so broad that they cover
a diverse group of products with correspondingly diverse values. 
Second, the importers and brokers may enter the wrong classification
code, quantity, or total value into Customs' ACS.  Thus, many of the
unit values being calculated from the Import Detailed Data Base may
be incorrect. 

Our analysis does not allow us to make any generalizations about
error rates across all commodities or even within the commodities we
examined.  However, the high overall error rate (errors in 45 of 80
transactions); the frequency of errors in HTS codes, which affects
both the incorrect commodity and the correct commodity; and the fact
that Customs' own research has also shown a high number of errors
lead to concerns about the accuracy of these data.  The errors we
found did not cause a loss of revenues or problems with quotas in
relation to the limited number of commodities and transactions we
examined.  However, our analysis has demonstrated the potential for
errors to affect revenues, quotas, and trade statistics.  The errors
also could lead to difficulties for Customs in using unit value
ranges to identify data errors and import compliance problems.  To
improve the quality of filer data, Customs could consider adding
narrower unit value ranges to ACS at the point of data entry, thereby
weighing the benefits of such a change against the costs to
importers. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury direct the
Commissioner of Customs to determine the feasibility of adding
narrower unit value ranges to Customs' ACS that will allow the filer
to identify and correct more errors at the point of data entry.  If
the Commissioner finds that such ranges are feasible and cost
effective, he should take the appropriate steps to implement them. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

The Customs Service and the Bureau of the Census provided written
comments on a draft of this report.  Customs agreed with our
conclusions and recommendation and discussed recent actions that it
had taken to increase the accuracy of data that are reported for
trade statistics.  Customs stated that, by placing emphasis on
improving overall compliance levels through its Compliance
Measurement program, major improvements will be made in the level of
compliance with a resultant increase in the quality of trade data. 
Customs also discussed a pilot program that will use reasonable
maximum and minimum unit values to screen entries for potential
errors and discrepancies.  Also, Customs said it is working in
partnership with Census to ensure that the ACS redesign program will
provide a long-term basis for overall statistical improvement. 

Census stated that it believed the report should have specified that
ACS provides Customs with the capability to override numerous Census
edits including price range and quantity requirements.  We agree with
this point.  On pages 10 to 11, we discuss ACS procedures for
screening each automated entry for unit value anomalies and Customs'
review of particular entries that fall above or below the Census
range.  Our primary concern is Customs' use of the data to ensure
compliance and to generate accurate trade statistics.  In this
regard, we recommend that Customs determine the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of developing narrower unit value ranges for its own
use. 

Census also believed clarification was needed in our statement that
Census may broaden the unit value range when too many transactions
fall outside the range.  Census stated that it does not automatically
adjust a range and that the more likely scenario is that adjustments
are a reaction to new products entering the trade flow.  One of the
ways of identifying new products is through groups of transactions
falling outside an established range.  We have modified the language
on page 11 accordingly.  Our main point is that the ranges are too
broad for any practical use of the unit values as a screening device
by Customs in ensuring compliance and accuracy of transaction data. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

We are providing copies of this report to the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Commissioner of Customs, and
other interested parties.  Copies also will be made available to
others upon request. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix XIII.  If
you need additional information or have any questions, please contact
me at (202) 512-8777. 

Sincerely yours,

Laurie E.  Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
 of Justice Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

On October 23, 1992, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight,
House Committee on Ways and Means, requested that we conduct a study
of unit values of imports and exports.  His concerns were based on
work in 1990 by two professors from Florida International University
(FIU), which found significant variations in the unit values of
seemingly identical commodities.  Specifically, the Chairman asked us
to assess the risk of false pricing of imports and exports as a cover
for money laundering, how such schemes were being used, the
pervasiveness of the problem, and the federal response needed. 

On September 14, 1993, we briefed the Subcommittee on our work to
date.  We said that laundering money through manipulative import and
export pricing is possible, however, it would be difficult since (1)
illicit currency would already have to be laundered once by getting
it into the banking system and (2) easier methods of laundering money
exist, such as simply smuggling it out of the country.  Neither we
nor the Customs Service had found evidence of any widespread import
and export pricing schemes.  On the basis of our analyses of selected
transactions, we believe the more likely explanation was that the
variations were the product of erroneous data being provided to
Customs by the industry. 

The Subcommittee noted that the original request letter was broad and
it was concerned with the overall issue of import valuation, not just
money laundering.  They asked that we continue our work, but refocus
our analysis.  In this regard, we agreed to limit our scope to
imports and to revise our objectives to determine (1) how widely unit
values for identical types of commodities varied and (2) why such
variations occurred.  They further agreed to our providing detailed
analyses of judgmentally selected commodities and transactions,
recognizing that the results would be illustrative, but not
projectable. 

As the focus of our study, we obtained from Customs the Import
Detailed Data Base, commonly referred to as the IM115 database, for
fiscal year 1992, which was the most recent year available.  These
data, extracted from Customs' Automated Commercial System (ACS) for
use by Census in developing trade statistics, include all import
transactions for the year.  In total, the files included 15,022,423
records. 

We used the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States as
the source for selecting commodities.  The HTS provides the official
classification codes and descriptions for more than 14,000 types of
commodities subject to importation into the United States.  The HTS
also provides information on the duties, fees, and quotas. 

We selected eight commodities for detailed analysis.  These were
pantyhose, raw cane sugar, scrap gold, tire cord fabric, unsweetened
cocoa, wood dowel rods, hypodermic syringes, and facsimile machines. 
While the selections were judgmental, we followed some general
criteria.  Thus, we chose commodities that would appear to have a
relatively narrow product description.  The one exception was
facsimile machines, which were known to have a broad definition and
were chosen for comparison.  We chose three commodities (raw cane
sugar, tire cord fabric, and pantyhose) that were subject to quotas. 
We chose two commodities (scrap gold and pantyhose) that had been
studied earlier by Customs and were known to have unit value
anomalies.  We also chose one (scrap gold) that had been included in
the FIU study. 

At Customs' recommendation, we restricted our analysis of the Import
Detailed Data Base to entries listed as "consumption entry" or
"warehouse withdrawals." This restriction was to ensure we were
looking at original entries only and to prevent double counting.  We
then extracted data from the following fields on each of the
commodities selected:  entry date, importer, consignee, quantity of
items in shipment, Customs' valuation of shipment, port of entry,
method of transportation, and country of origin.  At Customs'
recommendation, we did not use the unit price variable in the Import
Detailed Data Base, but rather calculated unit value on our own by
dividing the Customs valuation by quantity shipped. 

For each commodity, we ranked the individual shipments or
transactions in descending order by unit value.  We then divided the
overall distribution of transactions for each commodity into deciles. 
Since many transactions had the same unit value, the number of
transactions in each decile varied in some instances.  We also
developed analyses for each commodity showing the number of
transactions, total quantity, total value, highest unit value, lowest
unit value, median (by quantity and number of shipments) unit value,
and average unit value by country of origin, importers, U.S.  port of
entry, and method of transport. 

For our transaction analysis, we selected 10 transactions for each of
the 8 commodities.  Again, we selected these judgmentally but used
some broad criteria in making the selections.  We selected
transactions that would give us a range of values across (although
not necessarily in each of) the deciles, a representation of the
extremely high and extremely low unit values, a range across
importers, a comparison of transactions by the same importer,
comparisons between the number of shipments and quantity shipped by
the same importer, and a range of quantities shipped.  We also used
individual criteria for selected commodities.  For example, we were
interested in transactions of scrap gold where the unit value was
more than the value of pure gold, a transaction of raw cane sugar
that accounted for more than half of the quantity imported during the
year, and transactions on quota commodities where the quantities
appeared too small for the values cited.  Because we did not randomly
sample the commodities or transactions, we cannot generalize about
the overall level of errors in the Import Detailed Data Base. 

To verify the correct unit value for each of the transactions, we
obtained the supporting documentation maintained by Customs.  These
documents included such items as the entry summary, invoices,
shipping documents, packing lists, certifications of quota
eligibility, laboratory reports, and miscellaneous memoranda.  We
compared the quantities, values, and HTS codes shown in the Import
Detailed Data Base with these documents.  Where we noted
discrepancies or could not determine the correct amount, we contacted
the cognizant officials at Customs' ports and districts to determine
what the correct entries should have been. 

We also discussed each commodity and transaction with Customs'
cognizant National Import Specialist in New York as well as with
Customs' port representatives when more information was needed.  We
obtained and analyzed other data on the transactions from Customs'
ACS to determine the amounts of duties and fees paid, questions, if
any, raised and resolved during the entry process, etc.  In some
cases, Customs officials obtained information directly from the
importers or brokers for our use; however, we did not contact the
importers and brokers ourselves. 

Because the only unit value screens in Customs' ACS were the ranges
devised by the Census Bureau, we discussed each of the commodities
selected with Census officials and attempted to determine how
transactions with unit values outside the Census ranges were
resolved.  The data available were limited, because neither Census
nor Customs maintains a complete record of what was questioned or how
the matter was resolved. 

We met with Customs officials in Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; Miami,
FL; and New York to discuss enforcement activities, activities
related to the entry selectivity redesign project, quality assurance
reviews, and other special projects.  We also held telephone
discussions with Customs' import specialists at various Customs'
ports and districts nationwide. 


SUMMARY DATA ON EIGHT COMMODITIES
ANALYZED BY GAO, INCLUDING
TRANSACTIONS SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
========================================================== Appendix II

                                                                          Percen
                                                                               t
                                                                          select
Commodity                       Fiscal year 1992 total  GAO selections        ed
--------------  --------------  ----------------------  ----------------  ------
Scrap gold      Shipments       924                     10                   1.1

                Quantity        18,163,357 grams        1,671,933 grams      9.2

================================================================================
                Total value     $68,180,914             $9,159,269          13.4

Pantyhose       Shipments       1,882                   10                   0.5

                Quantity        7,159,497 dozen pair    119,578 dozen        1.7
                                                        pair

================================================================================
                Total value     $44,536,825             $567,116             1.3

Facsimile       Shipments       4,333                   10                   0.2
machines

                Quantity        2,336,227 units         23,650 units         1.0

================================================================================
                Total value     $956,212,890            $9,045,953           0.9

Hypodermic      Shipments       417                     10                   2.4
syringes

                Quantity        159,889,150 units       6,871,125 units      4.3

================================================================================
                Total value     $20,176,031             $1,233,958           6.1

Raw cane sugar  Shipments       32                      10                  31.3

                Quantity        2,632,911 kilograms     2,010,767           76.4
                                                        kilograms

================================================================================
                Total value     $1,422,070              $1,012,864          71.2

Wood dowel      Shipments       778                     10                   1.3
rods

                Quantity        96,184,254 meters       6,886,662 meters     7.2

================================================================================
                Total value     $13,604,114             $525,088             3.8

Tire cord       Shipments       214                     10                   4.7
fabric

                Quantity        3,626,032 kilograms     107,310              3.0
                                                        kilograms

================================================================================
                Total value     $13,421,938             $400,526             3.0

Unsweetened     Shipments       2,520                   10                   0.4
cocoa

                Quantity        57,906,785 kilograms    270,002              0.5
                                                        kilograms

                Total value     $64,672,145             $283,119             0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE - SCRAP
GOLD
========================================================= Appendix III

HTS CODE:  7112.10.00.00

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Gram

QUOTA:  None

DUTY:  None

DESCRIPTION:  This category includes gold waste and scrap, including
metals clad with gold.  It does not include sweepings containing
other precious metals or gold-plated items.  No distinction is made
within the code for the weight or purity (e.g., 10 carat, 14 carat,
24 carat, etc.). 



                                   Table III.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                                                            U.S.
                                                           ports  Countr
                                    Quantity       Total      of  ies of  Import
Number of shipments                  (grams)       value   entry  origin     ers
--------------------------------  ----------  ----------  ------  ------  ------
924                               18,163,357  $68,180,91      38      35      83
                                                       4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                         Table III.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                      Median  Median
                                      shipme  quanti  Averag
High               Low  High\a   Low    nt\b    ty\c       e
----------------  ----  ------  ----  ------  ------  ------
$28.00            $0.1  $4,368  $0.0   $8.50   $0.46   $3.75
                     0     .00     2
------------------------------------------------------------
\a While $4,368.00 was the highest unit value recorded, a total of
185 shipments (320,474 grams) had unit values greater than $11.60,
which was the highest monthly average value of pure gold during
fiscal year 1992. 

\b Unit value at shipment number 462 from listing of 924 shipments
arrayed by descending unit value. 

\c Unit value at cumulative quantity of 9,081,679 grams from listing
showing 18,163,357 grams in 924 shipments arrayed in descending unit
value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table III.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                    Number
                                        of
                                    shipme   Quantity      Total
Percentile range                       nts    (grams)      value    High     Low
----------------------------------  ------  ---------  ---------  ------  ------
91-100                                  92    463,306  $6,126,12  $4,368  $12.11
                                                               4     .00
81-90                                   92    319,959  3,788,138   12.10   11.61
71-80                                   93  1,270,857  14,466,84   11.61   11.07
                                                               8
61-70                                   90    497,343  5,405,420   11.07   10.50
51-60                                   95  1,551,481  14,652,38   10.50    8.50
                                                               6
41-50                                   92    837,863  6,101,287    8.33    6.71
31-40                                   88    600,834  3,936,296    6.71    6.33
21-30                                   97  1,125,310  6,605,547    6.32    5.40
11-20                                   92  1,161,157  4,700,666    5.35    1.80
1-10                                    93  10,335,24  2,398,202    1.78    0.02
                                                    7
================================================================================
Total                                  924  18,163,35  $68,180,9  $4,368   $0.02
                                                    7         14     .00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table III.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                                   Number
                                       of             Percen              Averag
                                   shipme   Quantity    t of       Total  e unit
Port                                  nts    (grams)   total       value   value
---------------------------------  ------  ---------  ------  ----------  ------
JFK Airport, NY                       183  3,721,038   20.49  $20,022,69   $5.38
                                                                       2
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY             148  3,436,588   18.92   6,654,493    1.94
Philadelphia, PA                       17  3,077,802   16.95   1,031,000    0.33
Miami International Airport, FL       204  2,815,980   15.50  16,313,647    5.79
Detroit, MI                            30  1,400,585    7.71   9,565,076    6.83
San Francisco, CA                      19    928,630    5.11     156,200    0.17
Remaining 32 ports                    323  2,782,734   15.32  14,437,806    5.19
================================================================================
Total                                 924  18,163,35  100.00  $68,180,91   $3.75
                                                   7                   4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table III.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                                   Number
                                       of             Percen              Averag
                                   shipme   Quantity    t of       Total  e unit
Country of origin                     nts    (grams)   total       value   value
---------------------------------  ------  ---------  ------  ----------  ------
Canada                                250  7,031,478   38.71  $35,142,13   $5.00
                                                                       1
Dominican Republic                    225  2,657,993   14.63  15,009,635    5.65
Argentina                               1  1,273,000    7.01      38,025    0.03
Guyana                                 12  1,070,890    5.90   2,799,660    2.61
Costa Rica                             53  1,009,692    5.56   2,540,455    2.52
Netherlands                            12  1,005,631    5.54     499,485    0.50
Philippines                            15    960,815    5.29     287,937    0.30
France\a                                7    794,150    4.37     441,116    0.56
Remaining 27 countries                349  2,359,708   12.99  11,422,470    4.84
================================================================================
Total                                 924  18,163,35  100.00  $68,180,91   $3.75
                                                   7                   4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes France, Andorra, and Monaco. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census, GAO computations. 



                                   Table III.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                                   Number
                                       of             Percen              Averag
                                   shipme   Quantity    t of       Total  e unit
Importer\a                            nts    (grams)   total       value   value
---------------------------------  ------  ---------  ------  ----------  ------
A                                      28  3,099,278   17.06  $1,256,621   $0.41
B                                     117  2,743,245   15.10   1,974,496    0.72
C                                       2  1,727,955    9.51  17,668,577   10.23
D                                      32  1,499,181    8.25     502,553    0.34
E                                      79  1,040,490    5.73  10,139,407    9.74
F                                      13  1,022,040    5.63   2,283,789    2.23
G                                      66    846,191    4.66   5,440,892    6.43
H                                      40    824,159    4.54   4,160,584    5.05
I                                       4    707,500    3.90     256,903    0.36
J                                      40    422,212    2.32   2,303,753    5.46
K                                      18    420,382    2.31     479,531    1.14
L                                      11    412,849    2.27   4,720,295   11.43
M                                       8    386,394    2.13   1,935,090    5.01
N                                      56    271,778    1.50   1,772,548    6.52
Remaining 69 importers                410  2,739,703   15.08  13,285,875    4.85
================================================================================
Total                                 924  18,163,35  99.99\  $68,180,91   $3.75
                                                   7       b           4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

\b Percent total does not equal 100.00 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table III.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                                   Number
                                       of             Percen              Averag
                                   shipme   Quantity    t of       Total  e unit
Method of transport                   nts    (grams)   total       value   value
---------------------------------  ------  ---------  ------  ----------  ------
Truck, non-container                  231  6,323,556   34.81  $25,777,64   $4.08
                                                                       5
Air carrier, non-container            391  4,633,782   25.51  29,718,521    6.41
Vessel, container                      39  4,016,355   22.11   1,303,101    0.32
Passenger, hand-carried               178  3,047,673   16.78  10,646,717    3.49
Automobile                              9     74,757    0.41      53,138    0.71
Vessel, non-container                  74     65,794    0.36     666,483   10.13
Fixed transport installations\a         1      1,276    0.01      13,401   10.50
Other method of transport               1        164    0.00       1,908   11.63
================================================================================
Total                                 924  18,163,35  99.99\  $68,180,91   $3.75
                                                   7       b           4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes pipeline and powerhouse. 

\b Percent total does not equal 100.00 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                    Table III.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity     Total      Unit  Quantity     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                         (grams)     value     value   (grams)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                    2    $8,736  $4,368.0     2,050    $8,736     $4.26                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                         0                                                                 2,048 grams. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

2                                3,694    47,023     12.73     3,694    47,023     12.73  X

3                                3,693    45,279     12.26     8,294    45,279      5.46                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                                                                           4,601 grams. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

4                              747,422  8,550,69     11.44   923,082  8,550,69      9.26                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                               3                             3                                             175,660 grams. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

5                                  122     1,321     10.83   182,000     1,321      0.01                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                                                                           181,878 grams. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

6                               34,000   255,000      7.50    40,000   260,000      6.50                 X         X       Quantity and total value
                                                                                                                           understated by 6,000
                                                                                                                           grams and $5,000,
                                                                                                                           respectively. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

7                                9,000    60,030      6.67     9,000    60,030      6.67  X

8                               41,000    15,464      0.38    38,660    15,464      0.40                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           2,340 grams. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

9                              788,000   172,780      0.22   788,000   172,780      0.22  X

10                              45,000     2,943      0.07     3,200     2,943      0.92                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           41,800 grams. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                         1,671,93  $9,159,2       N/A  1,997,98  $9,164,2       N/A  3      0       7         1
                                     3        69                   0        69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE -
PANTYHOSE
========================================================== Appendix IV

HTS CODE:  6115.11.00.20

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Dozen pair

QUOTA:  Yes

DUTY:  The duty ranges from free to 72 percent of value, depending on
the country. 

DESCRIPTION:  Products in this category include hosiery from fabric
that is made of synthetic fibers measuring less than 67 decitex per
single yarn.  The level of decitex in the hosiery determines the
sheerness or the heaviness of the material; a low level means that
the stocking is sheer, and a higher level means that it will be
heavier.  The range of products includes various styles and ranges of
pantyhose, tights, and stockings for varicose veins. 



                                    Table IV.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                                                            U.S.
                                    Quantity               ports  Countr
                                      (dozen       Total      of  ies of  Import
Number of shipments                    pair)       value   entry  origin     ers
--------------------------------  ----------  ----------  ------  ------  ------
1,882                              7,159,497  $44,536,82      61      26     200
                                                       5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census, GAO computations. 



                          Table IV.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                      Median  Median
                                      shipme  quanti  Averag
High               Low    High   Low    nt\a    ty\b       e
----------------  ----  ------  ----  ------  ------  ------
$270.00           $2.0  $1,267  $0.0  $11.64   $5.29   $6.22
                     0     .50   0\c
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Unit value at shipment number 941 from listing of 1882 shipments
arrayed by descending unit value. 

\b Unit value at cumulative quantity of 3,579,748.50 units from
listing showing 7,159,497 units in 1882 shipments arrayed by
descending unit value. 

\c One shipment had no quantity shown on the Import Detailed Data
Base.  The $0.52 value was the lowest unit value where a quantity was
shown. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IV.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                   Number
                                       of    Quantity
                                   shipme      (dozen      Total
Percentile range                      nts       pair)      value    High     Low
---------------------------------  ------  ----------  ---------  ------  ------
91-100                                189       1,268   $245,681  $1,267  $130.8
                                                                     .50       2
81-90                                 188       6,753    717,017  130.60   79.86
71-80                                 187      16,552    975,270   79.82   48.58
61-70                                 189      33,688  1,173,194   48.55   25.95
51-60                                 187     409,280  7,159,789   25.94   11.64
41-50                                 189     277,882  2,567,186   11.60    7.66
31-40                                 188   1,678,567  10,571,55    7.62    5.62
                                                               1
21-30                                 188   2,284,789  12,020,29    5.62    4.68
                                                               7
11-20                                 190     952,206  4,131,225    4.68    4.00
1-10                                  187   1,498,512  4,975,615    4.00    0.52
================================================================================
Total                               1,882   7,159,497  $44,536,8  $1,267   $0.52
                                                              25     .50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IV.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                                     Number  Quanti
                                         of      ty  Percent              Averag
                                     shipme  (dozen       of       Total  e unit
Port                                    nts   pair)    total       value   value
-----------------------------------  ------  ------  -------  ----------  ------
Charlotte, NC                           119  2,937,    41.03  $16,764,14   $5.71
                                                515                    2
Newark, NJ                              326  1,357,    18.96   6,822,406    5.02
                                                774
Los Angeles, CA                         279  1,052,    14.70   4,926,159    4.68
                                                344
San Ysidro, CA                           65  622,43     8.69   2,284,059    3.67
                                                  6
Miami International Airport, FL          24  353,72     4.94   6,307,302   17.83
                                                  7
Remaining 56 ports                    1,069  835,70    11.68   7,432,757    8.89
                                                  1
================================================================================
Total                                 1,882  7,159,   100.00  $44,536,82   $6.22
                                                497                    5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IV.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                                     Number  Quanti
                                         of      ty  Percent              Averag
                                     shipme  (dozen       of       Total  e unit
Country of origin                       nts   pair)    total       value   value
-----------------------------------  ------  ------  -------  ----------  ------
Jamaica                                 100  2,931,    40.94  $16,479,04   $5.62
                                                132                    9
China (Taiwan)                          506  1,433,    20.02   7,046,856    4.92
                                                406
Mexico                                   91  704,09     9.83   2,673,263    3.80
                                                  7
Turkey                                   55  567,86     7.93   2,456,449    4.33
                                                  2
Israel                                   66  462,19     6.46   2,909,788    6.30
                                                  2
Remaining 21 countries                1,064  1,060,    14.82  12,971,420   12.23
                                                808
================================================================================
Total                                 1,882  7,159,   100.00  $44,536,82   $6.22
                                                497                    5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IV.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                                     Number  Quanti
                                         of      ty  Percent              Averag
                                     shipme  (dozen       of       Total  e unit
Importer\a                              nts   pair)    total       value   value
-----------------------------------  ------  ------  -------  ----------  ------
A                                       124  3,283,    45.86  $22,839,46   $6.96
                                                680                    6
B                                        62  621,97     8.69   2,277,808    3.66
                                                  0
C                                       115  576,16     8.05   2,368,416    4.11
                                                  5
D                                        55  567,86     7.93   2,456,449    4.33
                                                  2
E                                        59  461,13     6.44   2,707,783    5.87
                                                  6
F                                        35  182,43     2.55     894,641    4.90
                                                  5
G                                        22  122,66     1.71     473,574    3.86
                                                  0
H                                        35  83,530     1.17     336,350    4.03
Remaining 191 importers               1,375  1,260,    17.60  10,182,338    8.08
                                                059
================================================================================
Total                                 1,882  7,159,   100.00  $44,536,82   $6.22
                                                497                    5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IV.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                                     Number  Quanti
                                         of      ty  Percent              Averag
                                     shipme  (dozen       of       Total  e unit
Method of transport                     nts   pair)    total       value   value
-----------------------------------  ------  ------  -------  ----------  ------
Vessel, container                       567  5,336,    74.54  $28,930,70   $5.42
                                                353                    6
Truck, non-container                    268  767,51    10.72   3,352,042    4.37
                                                  0
Air carrier, non-container              807  550,83     7.69   9,579,382   17.39
                                                  9
Vessel, non-container                   221  469,11     6.55   2,359,154    5.03
                                                  9
Air carrier, container                    3     437     0.01      13,014   29.78
Truck, container                          4     323     0.00      19,517   60.42
Mail                                      2     166     0.00       3,120   18.80
Other method of transport                10  34,750     0.49     279,890    8.05
================================================================================
Total                                 1,882  7,159,   100.00  $44,536,82   $6.22
                                                497                    5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                     Table IV.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity                      Quantity
                                (dozen     Total      Unit    (dozen     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                           pair)     value     value     pair)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                    4    $5,070  $1,267.5       149    $5,070    $34.03                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                         0                                                                 145 dozen pair. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

2                                   39     6,107    156.59        39     6,107    156.59  X

3                                  354    23,592     66.64       354    23,592     66.64  X

4                                  124     6,020     48.55       124     6,020     48.55  X

5                                9,620   173,465     18.03     9,620   173,465     18.03  X

6                                   81       885     10.93        81       885     10.93  X

7                               26,831   150,259      5.60    26,807   150,529      5.62                 X         X       Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           24 dozen pair and total
                                                                                                                           value understated by
                                                                                                                           $270.00. Duties
                                                                                                                           underpaid by $45.90.
                                                                                                                           Fees underpaid by $0.34.
                                                                                                                           Unit value changed.

8                               31,525   139,351      4.42    31,525   139,341      4.42  X

9                               12,000    42,000      3.50    12,000    42,000      3.50  X

10                              39,000    20,367      0.52     3,250    20,367      6.27                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           35,750 dozen pair. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                          119,578  $567,116       N/A    83,949  $567,386       N/A  7      N/A     3         1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE -
FACSIMILE MACHINES
=========================================================== Appendix V

HTS CODE:  8517.82.00.40

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Each unit

QUOTA:  None

DUTY:  The duty ranges from free to 35 percent of the value,
depending on the country. 

DESCRIPTION:  This commodity is an electrical apparatus which
electronically transmits and reproduces printed material.  The
category is extremely broad, covering items from simple units for
home use to elaborate units integrated into complex commercial
applications. 



                                    Table V.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                                                        U.S.  Countrie
                              Quantity       Total  ports of      s of  Importer
Number of shipments             (each)       value     entry    origin         s
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------  --------
4,333                        2,336,227  $956,212,8        74        21       229
                                                90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                          Table V.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                      Median  Median
                                    shipment  quanti  Averag
High          Low       High   Low        \a    ty\b       e
-----------  ----  ---------  ----  --------  ------  ------
$28,000.00   $10.  $147,292.  $5.6   $541.72  $288.7  $409.3
               00         00     2                 1       0
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Unit value at shipment number 2,167 from listing of 4,333
shipments arrayed by descending unit value. 

\b Unit value at cumulative quantity of 1,168,114 units from listing
showing 2,336,227 units in 4,333 shipments arrayed in descending unit
value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table V.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                Number
                                    of
                                shipme   Quantity      Total
Percentile range                   nts     (each)      value      High       Low
------------------------------  ------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------
91-100                             434     25,251  $51,367,7  $147,292  $1,550.0
                                                          15       .00         0
81-90                              431     58,532  82,158,98  1,547.00  1,271.20
                                                           2
71-80                              439     97,017  111,218,3  1,271.20  1,033.00
                                                          29
61-70                              438    125,318  110,633,6  1,030.00    740.00
                                                          46
51-60                              425    130,268  83,296,81    738.25    541.72
                                                           7
41-50                              433    176,968  79,110,34    540.74    384.04
                                                           0
31-40                              437    309,643  104,161,0    383.45    315.00
                                                          07
21-30                              429    372,413  109,985,1    314.91    279.67
                                                          86
11-20                              433    530,368  138,261,7    279.22    240.88
                                                          38
1-10                               434    510,449  86,019,13    240.87      5.62
                                                           0
================================================================================
Total                            4,333  2,336,227  $956,212,  $147,292     $5.62
                                                         890       .00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table V.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                               Number
                                   of                                    Average
                             shipment   Quantity   Percent       Total      unit
Port                                s     (each)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Los Angeles, CA                 1,211    889,248     38.06  $330,589,3   $371.76
                                                                    21
Seattle, WA                       365    312,479     13.38  122,511,78    392.06
                                                                     3
Newark, NJ                        578    289,821     12.41  145,340,08    501.48
                                                                     2
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX             444    247,853     10.61  129,493,84    522.46
                                                                     9
Atlanta, GA                       282    123,119      5.27  49,281,595    400.28
Tacoma, WA                        125    117,570      5.03  44,092,041    375.03
Remaining 68 ports              1,328    356,137     15.24  134,904,21    378.80
                                                                     9
================================================================================
Total                           4,333  2,336,227    100.00  $956,212,8   $409.30
                                                                    90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table V.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                               Number
                                   of                                    Average
                             shipment   Quantity   Percent       Total      unit
Country of origin                   s     (each)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Japan                           3,356  1,567,834     67.11  $768,618,5   $490.24
                                                                    97
Thailand                          166    324,670     13.90  79,840,453    245.91
Republic of Korea                 297    243,994     10.44  62,726,831    257.08
Remaining 18 countries            514    199,729      8.55  45,027,009    225.44
================================================================================
Total                           4,333  2,336,227    100.00  $956,212,8   $409.30
                                                                    90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table V.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                              Number
                                  of                                     Average
                            shipment   Quantity   Percent                   unit
Importer\a                         s     (each)  of total  Total value     value
--------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  -----------  --------
A                                647    536,809     22.98  $177,926,96   $331.45
                                                                     4
B                                380    382,098     16.36  125,233,343    327.75
C                                373    215,820      9.24  110,506,349    512.03
D                                192    185,511      7.94   63,184,618    340.60
E                                111    133,208      5.70   31,837,384    239.01
F                                 66    125,063      5.35   38,116,930    304.78
G                                194    117,294      5.02   37,035,188    315.75
H                                201     70,276      3.01   70,880,956   1008.61
I                                350     64,877      2.78   66,524,030   1025.39
J                                 77     52,244      2.24   31,913,556    610.86
K                                 64     49,810      2.13    1,365,638     27.42
L                                 48     40,800      1.75   10,762,700    263.79
Remaining 217 importers        1,630    362,417     15.51  190,925,234    526.81
================================================================================
Total                          4,333  2,336,227  100.01\b  $956,212,89   $409.30
                                                                     0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

\b Percent total does not equal 100.00 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table V.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                              Number
                                  of                                     Average
                            shipment   Quantity   Percent                   unit
Method of transport                s     (each)  of total  Total value     value
--------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  -----------  --------
Vessel, container              2,805  1,859,633     79.60  $788,297,23   $423.90
                                                                     2
Vessel, non-container            333    206,715      8.85   84,044,546    406.57
Air carrier, non-                699    121,732      5.21   42,512,651    349.23
 container
Truck, non-container             218     55,484      2.37    7,797,373    140.53
Air carrier, container            11      3,525      0.15    1,258,582    357.04
Other method of transport        267     89,138      3.82   32,302,506    362.39
================================================================================
Total                          4,333  2,336,227    100.00  $956,212,89   $409.30
                                                                     0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                     Table V.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity     Total      Unit  Quantity     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                          (each)     value     value    (each)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                    1  $147,292  $147,292         1  $147,292  $147,292         X                         Entry should have been
                                                       .00                           .00                                   made under another
                                                                                                                           category covering other
                                                                                                                           telegraphic apparatus
                                                                                                                           (HTS 8517.82.00.80). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

2                                    1    53,990  53,990.0         1    26,336  26,336.0                           X       Total value overstated
                                                         0                             0                                   by $27,654. No effect on
                                                                                                                           duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

3                                  265   454,538  1,715.24       400   454,538  1,136.35                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                                                                           135 units. No effect on
                                                                                                                           duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

4                                1,776  2,394,63  1,348.33     1,776  2,394,63  1,348.33  X
                                               3                             3

5                                3,080  1,976,65    641.77     3,080  1,976,65    641.77  X
                                               2                             2

6                                1,107   489,108    441.83       907   447,008    492.84         X       X         X       Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category covering other
                                                                                                                           parts of telegraphic
                                                                                                                           apparatus (HTS
                                                                                                                           8517.90.80.00). Quantity
                                                                                                                           and value overstated by
                                                                                                                           200 units and $42,100.
                                                                                                                           No effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

7                               12,905  3,408,76    264.14    12,905  3,408,76    264.14  X
                                               8                             8

8                                3,168    92,616     29.23     3,168    92,616     29.23         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category covering modems
                                                                                                                           for automatic data
                                                                                                                           processing machines (HTS
                                                                                                                           8517.40.10.00). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

9                                1,057    26,425     25.00         1    26,425  26,425.0                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                       0                                   1,056 units. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

10                                 290     1,631      5.62       290     1,631      5.62         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category covering parts
                                                                                                                           for telegraphic terminal
                                                                                                                           apparatus (HTS
                                                                                                                           8517.90.70.00). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                           23,650  $9,045,6       N/A    22,529  $8,975,8       N/A  3      4       3         2
                                              53                            99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE -
HYPODERMIC SYRINGES
========================================================== Appendix VI

HTS CODE:  9018.31.00.40

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Each unit

QUOTA:  None

DUTY:  The duty ranges from free to 60 percent of value, depending on
the country. 

DESCRIPTION:  A hypodermic syringe is an instrument used in medical,
surgical, dental, or veterinary procedures to inject fluids.  This
particular HTS is for hypodermic syringes (with or without needle),
which are used for medical purposes. 



                                    Table VI.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                                                        U.S.  Countrie
                              Quantity       Total  ports of      s of  Importer
Number of shipments             (each)       value     entry    origin         s
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------  --------
417                         159,889,15  $20,176,03        38        23        57
                                     0           1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                          Table VI.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                      Median  Median
                                    shipment  quanti  Averag
High           Low      High   Low        \a    ty\b       e
------------  ----  --------  ----  --------  ------  ------
$500.00       $0.0  $3,485.0  $0.0     $1.10   $0.06   $0.13
                 1         0     1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Unit value at shipment number 209 from listing of 417 shipments
arrayed by descending unit value. 

\b Unit value at cumulative quantity of 79,944,575 units from listing
showing 159,889,150 units in 417 shipments arrayed in descending unit
value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table VI.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                               Number
                                   of
                             shipment    Quantity      Total
Percentile range                    s    (meters)      value      High       Low
---------------------------  --------  ----------  ---------  --------  --------
91-100                             42      87,281  $2,179,57  $3,485.0    $20.50
                                                           2         0
81-90                              41     145,998  1,140,489     18.74      6.69
71-80                              42     336,093  1,962,172      6.68      4.63
61-70                              49   1,423,790  3,612,893      4.51      2.25
51-60                              33     469,889    696,491      2.25      1.16
41-50                              42   3,095,709  1,720,101      1.10      0.34
31-40                              42  28,766,540  2,549,707      0.32      0.06
21-30                              42  65,952,600  3,847,367      0.06      0.05
11-20                              42  30,872,250  1,548,231      0.05      0.05
1-10                               42  28,739,000    919,008      0.04      0.01
================================================================================
Total                             417  159,889,15  $20,176,0  $3,485.0     $0.01
                                                0         31         0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table VI.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                               Number
                                   of              Percent               Average
                             shipment    Quantity       of       Total      unit
Port                                s      (each)    total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ----------  -------  ----------  --------
Newark, NJ                         93  104,453,21    65.33  $9,865,086     $0.09
                                                2
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN           15  16,145,400    10.10     808,656      0.05
Los Angeles, CA                    20  12,248,268     7.66     758,736      0.06
Philadelphia, PA                   12   5,586,300     3.49     274,724      0.05
Remaining 34 ports                277  21,455,970    13.42   8,468,829      0.39
================================================================================
Total                             417  159,889,15   100.00  $20,176,03     $0.13
                                                0                    1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table VI.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                               Number
                                   of              Percent               Average
                             shipment    Quantity       of       Total      unit
Country of origin                   s      (each)    total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ----------  -------  ----------  --------
Singapore                          61  95,362,016    59.64  $6,675,784     $0.07
Republic of                        42  29,129,000    18.22   1,498,082      0.05
 Korea
Thailand                           10  10,947,000     6.85     491,428      0.04
Japan                              50   8,347,658     5.22   1,545,650      0.19
Remaining 19 countries            254  16,103,476    10.07   9,965,087      0.62
================================================================================
Total                             417  159,889,15   100.00  $20,176,03     $0.13
                                                0                    1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table VI.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                               Number
                                   of              Percent               Average
                             shipment    Quantity       of       Total      unit
Importer\a                          s      (each)    total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ----------  -------  ----------  --------
A                                 118  100,591,24    62.91  $8,457,407     $0.08
                                                8
B                                  15  16,145,400    10.10     808,656      0.05
C                                  12  11,004,500     6.88     504,369      0.05
D                                  12   5,586,300     3.49     274,724      0.05
Remaining 53 importers            260  26,561,702    16.61  10,130,875      0.38
================================================================================
Total                             417  159,889,15  99.99\b  $20,176,03     $0.13
                                                0                    1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

\b Percent total does not equal 100.00 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table VI.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                               Number
                                   of              Percent               Average
                             shipment    Quantity       of       Total      unit
Method of transport                 s      (each)    total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ----------  -------  ----------  --------
Vessel, container                 141  145,780,45    91.18  $10,053,10     $0.07
                                                0                    1
Air carrier, non-container        168   7,840,979     4.90   6,862,023      0.88
Vessel, non-container              32   3,609,668     2.26     739,212      0.20
Truck, non-container               63   2,516,384     1.57   2,305,313      0.92
Rail, non-container                 2     106,200     0.07      19,120      0.18
Truck, container                    3      22,625     0.01     154,874      6.85
Air carrier, container              7      11,009     0.01      40,264      3.66
Other method of transport           1       1,835     0.00       2,124      1.16
================================================================================
Total                             417  159,889,15   100.00  $20,176,03     $0.13
                                                0                    1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                      Table VI.8
                                                       
                                                             Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                          Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                                Selected Transactions


                              Quantity     Total      Unit  Quantity     Total      Unit           Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                          (each)     value     value    (each)     value     value  None     HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -------  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                    1    $3,485  $3,485.0        20    $3,485   $174.20           X       X                 Entry should have been
                                                         0                                                                   made under other
                                                                                                                             instruments and
                                                                                                                             appliances (HTS
                                                                                                                             9018.19.80.60). Quantity
                                                                                                                             understated by 19 units.
                                                                                                                             Duty overpaid by
                                                                                                                             $146.37. No effect on
                                                                                                                             fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                             changed.

2                                  600    57,208     95.35   319,800    57,208      0.18                   X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                                                                             319,200 units. No effect
                                                                                                                             on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                             value changed.

3                               12,920    90,110      6.97    12,920    90,110      6.97  X

4                               28,800   133,452      4.63    28,800   133,452      4.63  X

5                              180,000   405,000      2.25   180,000   405,000      2.25  X

6                              259,304   200,855      0.77  3,268,40   200,855      0.06                   X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                   0                                                         3,009,096 units. No
                                                                                                                             effect on duties and
                                                                                                                             fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                             changed.

7                              600,000   135,000      0.23    60,000   135,000      2.25                   X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                             540,000 units. No effect
                                                                                                                             on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                             value changed.

8                             2,475,00   129,797      0.05  2,475,00   129,797      0.05  X
                                     0                             0

9                             1,050,00    36,449      0.03  1,050,00    36,449      0.03  X
                                     0                             0

10                            2,264,50    42,602      0.02  2,264,50    42,602      0.02  X
                                     0                             0

=====================================================================================================================================================
Total                         6,871,12  $1,233,9       N/A  9,659,44  $1,233,9       N/A  6        1       4         N/A
                                     5        58                   0        58
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE - RAW
CANE SUGAR
========================================================= Appendix VII

HTS CODE:  1701.11.01.25

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Kilogram

QUOTA:  Sugar is under a tariff rate quota and only those countries
with a quota can export sugar to the United States.  The United
States imposes a quantitative sugar quota on over 50 countries, and
imports in excess of the quota are subject to a higher duty. 

DUTY:  The regular duty for this type of sugar ranges from free to
$0.043817 per kilogram, depending on the country.  Imports in excess
of the quota are subject to a duty of $0.37386 per kilogram.  In
addition, sugar imports are subject to a sugar fee of $0.022 per
kilogram. 

DESCRIPTION:  This category includes raw cane sugar, which is in
solid form and (1) contains no added flavoring or coloring matter;
(2) has a dry-state sucrose content that, by weight, corresponds to a
polarity reading of less than 99.5 degrees; and (3) is not to be
further refined or improved in quality.  This is a relatively small
and narrow category of sugar, falling between the still-to-be
processed raw sugar traded on the world market and the highly refined
sugars commonly available for general use as a sweetener. 



                                   Table VII.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                              Quantity                  U.S.  Countrie
                            (kilograms       Total  ports of      s of  Importer
Number of shipments                  )       value     entry    origin         s
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------  --------
32                           2,632,911  $1,422,070         6         5        15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                         Table VII.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                    Median    Median
                                  shipment  quantity  Averag
High            Low   High   Low        \a        \b       e
-------------  ----  -----  ----  --------  --------  ------
$1.49          $0.0  $1.75  $0.4     $0.75     $0.43   $0.54
                  7            3
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Unit value at shipment number 16 from listing of 32 shipments
arrayed by descending unit value. 

\b Unit value at cumulative quantity of 1,316,456 kilograms from
listing showing 2,632,911 kilograms in 32 shipments arrayed in
descending unit value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VII.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                Number
                                    of   Quantity
                              shipment  (kilogram      Total
Percentile range                     s         s)      value      High       Low
----------------------------  --------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------
91-100                               3      8,898    $14,294     $1.75     $1.40
81-90                                4     48,486     51,189      1.33      0.99
71-80                                2     11,695     11,007      0.95      0.93
61-70                                3     25,643     23,244      0.92      0.88
51-60                                5     68,873     53,310      0.86      0.75
41-50                                3    355,414    223,630      0.71      0.62
31-40                                2    335,874    209,751      0.62      0.62
21-30                                3    231,027    144,218      0.62      0.62
11-20                                3    105,435     65,544      0.62      0.62
1-10                                 4  1,441,566    625,883      0.62      0.43
================================================================================
Total                               32  2,632,911  $1,422,07     $1.75     $0.43
                                                           0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VII.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                              Number
                                  of    Quantity                         Average
                            shipment  (kilograms   Percent       Total      unit
Port                               s           )  of total       value     value
--------------------------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------
New York, NY                       7   1,413,396     53.68    $623,227     $0.44
Newark, NJ                        15   1,096,329     41.64     692,405      0.63
Remaining four ports              10     123,186      4.68     106,438      0.86
================================================================================
Total                             32   2,632,911    100.00  $1,422,070     $0.54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VII.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                              Number
                                  of    Quantity                         Average
                            shipment  (kilograms   Percent       Total      unit
Country of origin                  s           )  of total       value     value
--------------------------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------
Bolivia                            1   1,365,810     51.87    $581,835     $0.43
Mauritius                         11   1,050,729     39.91     655,621      0.62
Colombia                          18     179,363      6.81     144,850      0.81
China (mainland)                   1      33,409      1.27      34,980      1.05
United Kingdom                     1       3,600      0.14       4,784      1.33
================================================================================
Total                             32   2,632,911    100.00  $1,422,070     $0.54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VII.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                              Number
                                  of    Quantity                         Average
                            shipment  (kilograms   Percent       Total      unit
Importer\a                         s           )  of total       value     value
--------------------------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------
A                                  1   1,365,810     51.87    $581,835     $0.43
B                                  6     881,980     33.50     550,823      0.62
C                                  5     168,749      6.41     104,798      0.62
Remaining 12 importers            20     216,372      8.22     184,614      0.84
================================================================================
Total                             32   2,632,911    100.00  $1,422,070     $0.54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VII.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                              Number
                                  of    Quantity                         Average
                            shipment  (kilograms   Percent       Total      unit
Method of transport                s           )  of total       value     value
--------------------------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------
Vessel, container                 31   2,620,290     99.52  $1,415,128     $0.54
Vessel, non-container              1      12,621      0.48       6,942      0.55
================================================================================
Total                             32   2,632,911    100.00  $1,422,070     $0.54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                    Table VII.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity                      Quantity
                              (kilogra     Total      Unit  (kilogra     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                             ms)     value     value       ms)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                4,867    $8,503     $1.75     4,851    $8,503     $1.75                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           16 kilograms. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees.

2                               33,409    34,980      1.05    33,409    21,903      0.66                           X       Total value overstated
                                                                                                                           by $13,077. No effect on
                                                                                                                           duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

3                                7,200     6,723      0.93     6,532     6,723      1.03                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           668 kilograms. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

4                               15,000    13,774      0.92    15,000    13,774      0.92  X

5                               17,000    12,800      0.75    17,000    12,800      0.75  X

6                              168,212   105,075      7.62   168,212   105,075      7.62  X

7                              167,942   104,879      0.62   167,942   104,879      0.62         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category of cane sugar
                                                                                                                           (HTS 1701.99.01.35). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

8                              167,922   104,865      0.62   167,922   104,865      0.62         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category of cane sugar
                                                                                                                           (HTS 1701.99.01.35). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

9                               63,405    39,430      0.62    63,405    39,430      0.62  X

10                            1,365,81   581,835      0.43  1,365,81   581,835      0.43         X                         Entry should have been
                                     0                             0                                                       made under another
                                                                                                                           category of cane sugar
                                                                                                                           (HTS 1701.99.01.35). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                         2,010,76  $1,012,8       N/A  2,010,08  $999,787       N/A  4      3       2         1
                                     7        64                   3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE - WOOD
DOWEL RODS
======================================================== Appendix VIII

HTS CODE:  4409.20.60.00

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Meter

QUOTA:  None

DUTY:  The duty ranges from free to 5 percent of the value, depending
on the country. 

DESCRIPTION:  Wood dowel rods are round pieces of wood of various
lengths and diameters.  They have many uses, such as in the
manufacturing of furniture, mop and broom handles, and coat racks. 



                                   Table VIII.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                                                        U.S.  Countrie
                              Quantity       Total  ports of      s of  Importer
Number of shipments           (meters)       value     entry    origin         s
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------  --------
778                         96,184,254  $13,604,11        32        11        51
                                                 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                         Table VIII.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                  Median    Median
                                shipment  quantity
High       Low      High   Low        \a        \b   Average
--------  ----  --------  ----  --------  --------  --------
$1.99     $0.0  $3,809.0  $0.0     $0.19     $0.09     $0.14
            03         0    04
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Unit value at shipment number 389 from listing of 778 shipments
arrayed by descending unit value. 

\b Unit value at cumulative quantity of 48,092,127 meters from
listing showing 96,184,254 meters in 778 shipments arrayed in
descending unit value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VIII.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                Number
                                    of
                              shipment   Quantity      Total
Percentile range                     s   (meters)      value      High       Low
----------------------------  --------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------
91-100                              78    519,442  $1,048,62  $3,809.0     $1.28
                                                           6         0
81-90                               78  2,069,781  1,408,765      1.25      0.43
71-80                               77  4,147,892  1,339,445      0.43      0.27
61-70                               79  6,900,348  1,639,050      0.27      0.22
51-60                               77  7,836,150  1,594,718      0.22      0.19
41-50                               77  13,115,76  2,365,522      0.19      0.16
                                                0
31-40                               78  7,847,522  1,076,018      0.16      0.12
21-30                               79  11,929,71  1,152,237      0.12      0.08
                                                5
11-20                               77  19,956,93  1,293,894      0.08      0.05
                                                5
1-10                                78  21,860,70    685,839      0.05      0.00
                                                9
================================================================================
Total                              778  96,184,25  $13,604,1  $3,809.0     $0.00
                                                4         14         0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VIII.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                               Number
                                   of                                    Average
                             shipment   Quantity   Percent       Total      unit
Port                                s   (meters)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
New Orleans, LA                   158  26,873,20     27.94  $4,206,256     $0.16
                                               6
Newark, NJ                         67  17,768,89     18.47    $962,998      0.05
                                               2
Baltimore, MD                      50  7,937,358      8.25    $908,958      0.11
Norfolk, VA                        76  7,313,304      7.60  $1,462,334      0.20
San Francisco, CA                  23  5,979,046      6.22    $515,149      0.09
Los Angeles, CA                    47  5,638,151      5.86     727,113      0.13
Miami, FL                          48  3,633,194      3.78     336,873      0.09
Mobile, AL                         35  3,473,196      3.61     428,272      0.12
Cincinnati, OH                     23  2,748,626      2.86     568,108      0.21
Philadelphia, PA                   22  2,611,807      2.72     399,802      0.15
Remaining 22 ports                229  12,207,47     12.69   3,088,251      0.25
                                               4
================================================================================
Total                             778  96,184,25    100.00  $13,604,11     $0.14
                                               4                     4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VIII.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                               Number
                                   of                                    Average
                             shipment   Quantity   Percent       Total      unit
Country of origin                   s   (meters)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Malaysia                          223  44,634,97     46.41  $3,377,386     $0.08
                                               8
Indonesia                         309  31,345,23     32.59   5,782,699      0.18
                                               1
Singapore                          47  6,072,170      6.31     843,546      0.14
Remaining eight countries         199  14,131,87     14.69   3,600,483      0.25
                                               5
================================================================================
Total                             778  96,184,25    100.00  $13,604,11     $0.14
                                               4                     4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VIII.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                               Number
                                   of                                    Average
                             shipment   Quantity   Percent       Total      unit
Importer\a                          s   (meters)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
A                                  79  18,839,24     19.59  $2,731,536     $0.15
                                               6
B                                 160  14,521,86     15.10   2,359,540      0.16
                                               0
C                                  10  8,664,577      9.01     380,150      0.04
D                                  53  7,598,891      7.90   1,310,194      0.17
E                                  38  5,940,085      6.18     684,693      0.12
F                                  25  5,045,643      5.25     473,390      0.09
G                                  39  4,014,937      4.17     218,618      0.05
H                                  54  4,013,160      4.17     416,089      0.10
I                                  16  3,051,899      3.17     223,984      0.07
J                                  30  2,876,557      2.99     566,232      0.20
K                                  23  2,748,626      2.86     568,108      0.21
L                                  10  2,427,519      2.52     139,887      0.06
M                                  13  1,722,054      1.79     194,622      0.11
N                                  18  1,539,786      1.60     230,683      0.15
Remaining 37 importers            210  13,179,41     13.70   3,106,388      0.24
                                               4
================================================================================
Total                             778  96,184,25    100.00  $13,604,11     $0.14
                                               4                     4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                   Table VIII.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                               Number
                                   of                                    Average
                             shipment   Quantity   Percent       Total      unit
Method of transport                 s   (meters)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Vessel, non-container             384  58,296,28     60.61  $7,784,400     $0.13
                                               9
Vessel, container                 276  35,761,89     37.18   3,938,960      0.11
                                               9
Truck, non-container              115  2,080,630      2.16   1,822,586      0.88
Rail, non-container                 3     45,436      0.05      58,168      1.28
================================================================================
Total                             778  96,184,25    100.00  $13,604,11     $0.14
                                               4                     4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                    Table VIII.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity     Total      Unit  Quantity     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                        (meters)     value     value  (meters)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                    2    $7,618  $3,809.0     4,618    $7,618     $1.65                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                         0                                                                 4,616 meters. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

2                               44,358    51,716      1.17    44,358    51,716      1.17  X

3                               46,329    13,635      0.29    46,329    13,635      0.29  X

4                              273,978    69,223      0.25   273,978    69,223      0.25  X

5                               56,693    11,037      0.19    56,693    11,037      0.19  X

6                             1,580,66   291,891      0.18  1,580,66   291,891      0.18  X
                                     5                             5

7                               53,239     5,995      0.11    53,239     5,995      0.11  X

8                              643,808    49,979      0.08   643,608    48,709      0.08                 X         X       Quantity and value
                                                                                                                           overstated by 200 meters
                                                                                                                           and $1,270 respectively.
                                                                                                                           No effect on duties;
                                                                                                                           fees overpaid by $2.15.

9                             1,478,40    13,691      0.01   450,617    13,691      0.03                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                     0                                                                                     1,027,783 meters. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

10                            2,709,19    10,303     0.004   225,765    10,303      0.05                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                     0                                                                                     2,483,425 meters. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                         6,886,66  $525,088       N/A  3,379,87  $523,818       N/A  6      N/A     4         1
                                     2                             0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE - TIRE
CORD FABRIC
========================================================== Appendix IX

HTS CODE:  5902.10.00.00

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Kilogram

QUOTA:  Yes

DUTY:  The duty ranges from 0.7 to 25 percent of value, depending on
the country. 

DESCRIPTION:  Tire cord fabric is a strong, heat resistant material
that is used to manufacture tires.  The fabric has a high level of
tenacity. 



                                    Table IX.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                              Quantity                  U.S.  Countrie
                            (kilograms       Total  ports of      s of  Importer
Number of shipments                  )       value     entry    origin         s
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------  --------
214                          3,626,032  $13,421,93        17         9        11
                                                 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                          Table IX.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                    Median    Median
                                  shipment  quantity  Averag
High         Low      High   Low        \a        \b       e
----------  ----  --------  ----  --------  --------  ------
$25.00      $0.9    $59.78  $1.2     $3.66     $3.65   $3.70
               6               1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Unit value at shipment number 107 from listing of 214 shipments
arrayed by descending unit value. 

\b Unit value at cumulative quantity of 1,813,016 kilograms from
listing showing 3,626,032 kilograms in 214 shipments arrayed in
descending unit value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IX.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                Number
                                    of   Quantity
                              shipment  (kilogram      Total
Percentile range                     s         s)      value      High       Low
----------------------------  --------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------
91-100                              22      9,273   $124,360    $59.78     $6.50
81-90                               20    375,668  1,500,296      4.59      3.90
71-80                               22    434,133  1,666,524      3.88      3.82
61-70                               21    410,492  1,551,437      3.82      3.75
51-60                               22    439,671  1,627,010      3.75      3.66
41-50                               21    420,336  1,526,920      3.66      3.61
31-40                               22    440,694  1,580,116      3.60      3.56
21-30                               22    437,678  1,557,268      3.56      3.54
11-20                               20    397,486  1,396,275      3.54      3.50
1-10                                22    260,601    891,732      3.50      1.21
================================================================================
Total                              214  3,626,032  $13,421,9    $59.78     $1.21
                                                          38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IX.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Port                                s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY         181  3,548,681     97.87  $13,056,37     $3.68
                                                                     8
Detroit, MI                         2     41,323      1.14     155,565      3.76
Remaining 15 ports                 31     36,028      0.99     209,995      5.83
================================================================================
Total                             214  3,626,032    100.00  $13,421,93     $3.70
                                                                     8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IX.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Country of origin                   s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Canada                            187  3,615,151     99.70  $13,292,72     $3.68
                                                                     5
Remaining eight countries          27     10,881      0.30     129,213     11.88
================================================================================
Total                             214  3,626,032    100.00  $13,421,93     $3.70
                                                                     8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IX.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Importer\a                          s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
A                                 184  3,609,976     99.56  $13,283,11     $3.68
                                                                     5
Remaining 10 importers             30     16,056      0.44     138,823      8.65
================================================================================
Total                             214  3,626,032    100.00  $13,421,93     $3.70
                                                                     8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table IX.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Method of transport                 s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Truck, non-container              188  3,618,904     99.80  $13,322,25     $3.68
                                                                     9
Air carrier, non-container         23      6,862      0.19      91,394     13.32
Vessel, container                   3        266      0.01       8,285     31.15
================================================================================
Total                             214  3,626,032    100.00  $13,421,93     $3.70
                                                                     8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                     Table IX.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity                      Quantity
                              (kilogra     Total      Unit  (kilogra     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                             ms)     value     value       ms)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                   23    $1,375    $59.78        23    $1,375    $59.78         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category of tire cord.
                                                                                                                           Effect on duties unknown
                                                                                                                           because correct HTS is
                                                                                                                           unknown. No effect on
                                                                                                                           fees.

2                                   50     2,232     44.64        50     2,232     44.64  X

3                                2,036    15,681      7.70       204    15,681     76.87         X       X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           1,832 kilograms. Entry
                                                                                                                           should have been made
                                                                                                                           under polyurethane
                                                                                                                           impregnated textile
                                                                                                                           fabric (HTS
                                                                                                                           5903.20.25.00). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

4                                  636     2,540      3.99       636     2,540      3.99  X

5                               21,148    79,748      3.77    20,852    79,748      3.82                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           296 kilograms. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees.
                                                                                                                           Unite value changed.

6                               20,319    75,504      3.72    20,002    75,504      3.77                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           317 kilograms. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

7                               21,021    75,645      3.60    20,724    75,645      3.65                 X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           297 kilograms. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

8                               20,801    74,069      3.56    20,801    74,069      3.56  X

9                               21,076    73,415      3.48    19,807    73,151      3.69                 X         X       Quantity and value
                                                                                                                           overstated by 1,269
                                                                                                                           kilograms and $264
                                                                                                                           respectively. Duties
                                                                                                                           overpaid by $10.30 and
                                                                                                                           fees overpaid by $0.18.
                                                                                                                           Unit value changed.

10                                 200       317      1.59        56       317      5.66         X       X                 Quantity overstated by
                                                                                                                           144 kilograms. Entry
                                                                                                                           should have been made
                                                                                                                           under another category
                                                                                                                           of tire cord. Effect on
                                                                                                                           duties unknown because
                                                                                                                           correct HTS is unknown.
                                                                                                                           No effect on fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                          107,310  $400,526       N/A   103,155  $400,262       N/A  3      3       6         1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1992
IMPORT QUANTITY AND VALUE -
UNSWEETENED COCOA
=========================================================== Appendix X

HTS CODE:  1805.00.00.00

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT:  Kilogram

QUOTA:  None

DUTY:  The duty ranges from free to $0.066 per kilogram, depending on
the country. 

DESCRIPTION:  This category covers cocoa powder that contains no
added sugar or other sweetening matter.  It does not include similar
commodities, such as cocoa butter, paste, or chocolate preparations. 



                                    Table X.1
                     
                     General Information on Import Activities

                              Quantity                  U.S.  Countrie
                            (kilograms       Total  ports of      s of  Importer
Number of shipments                  )       value     entry    origin         s
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------  --------  --------
2,520                       57,906,785  $64,672,14        37        15        46
                                                 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                          Table X.2
           
                Unit Value Comparison -Overall


                                    Median
                                   sipment    Median
                            Low\  shipment  quantity  Averag
High           Low    High     a        \b        \c       e
------------  ----  ------  ----  --------  --------  ------
$13.39        $0.1  $234.4  $0.0     $1.20     $1.15   $1.12
                 8       3     0
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Eighteen shipments had no quantity shown on the Import Detailed
Data Base.  The $0.11 value was the lowest unit value where a
quantity was shown. 

\b Unit value at shipment number 1,260 from listing of 2,520
shipments arrayed by descending unit value. 

\c Unit value at cumulative quantity of 28,953,393 kilograms from
listing showing 57,906,785 kilograms in 2,520 shipments arrayed in
descending unit value. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table X.3
                     
                        Unit Value Comparison -Percentiles


                                Number
                                    of   Quantity
                              shipment  (kilogram      Total
Percentile range                     s         s)      value      High       Low
----------------------------  --------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------
91-100                             250  3,449,100  $7,320,93   $234.43     $1.75
                                                           2
81-90                              255  4,717,074  7,549,940      1.75      1.49
71-80                              244  4,677,130  6,651,494      1.49      1.37
61-70                              247  5,036,556  6,665,020      1.37      1.27
51-60                              247  5,430,127  6,717,884      1.27      1.21
41-50                              254  5,312,551  6,239,590      1.21      1.15
31-40                              257  5,495,046  6,204,602      1.15      1.10
21-30                              246  5,807,273  6,147,403      1.10      1.01
11-20                              253  5,933,020  5,090,074      1.01      0.68
1-10                               267  12,048,90  6,085,206      0.68      0.00
                                                8
================================================================================
Total                            2,520  57,906,78  $64,672,1   $234.43     $0.00
                                                5         45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table X.4
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -U.S. Port
                                     of Entry

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Port                                s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Newark, NJ                        801  16,784,57     28.99  $21,340,31     $1.27
                                               1                     9
Chicago, IL                       386  8,812,892     15.22   9,579,707      1.09
Philadelphia, PA                  154  6,439,754     11.12   3,616,378      0.56
Charleston, SC                    146  4,108,933      7.10   4,606,141      1.12
San Francisco, CA                 155  3,029,733      5.23   3,705,484      1.22
Norfolk, VA                       131  2,941,414      5.08   2,894,998      0.98
Boston, MA                        128  2,643,746      4.57   3,614,551      1.37
Los Angeles, CA                   158  2,594,784      4.48   3,809,669      1.47
Houston, TX                        88  2,273,819      3.93   2,589,790      1.14
Remaining 28 ports                373  8,277,139     14.29   8,915,108      1.08
================================================================================
Total                           2,520  57,906,78  100.01\a  $64,672,14     $1.12
                                               5                     5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percent total does not equal 100.00 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table X.5
                     
                      Average Unit Value Comparison -Country
                                    of Origin

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Country of origin                   s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Netherlands                     1,831  36,269,03     62.63  $47,836,61     $1.32
                                               6                     4
Brazil                            133  7,842,314     13.54   3,673,929      0.47
Singapore                         209  7,717,214     13.33   6,226,354      0.81
Remaining 12 countries            347  6,078,221     10.50   6,935,248      1.14
================================================================================
Total                           2,520  57,906,78    100.00  $64,672,14     $1.12
                                               5                     5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table X.6
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Importer

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Importer\a                          s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
A                               1,104  26,662,03     46.04  $30,922,73     $1.16
                                               2                     6
B                                 551  13,344,35     23.04  13,913,031      1.04
                                               3
C                                 292  4,833,041      8.35   8,715,676      1.80
D                                 190  3,258,005      5.63   4,187,277      1.29
E                                  44  1,996,325      3.45     595,324      0.30
Remaining 41 importers            339  7,813,029     13.49   6,338,101      0.81
================================================================================
Total                           2,520  57,906,78    100.00  $64,672,14     $1.12
                                               5                     5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Importer name deleted to avoid identification with trade-sensitive
data. 

Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                    Table X.7
                     
                     Average Unit Value Comparison -Method of
                                    Transport

                               Number
                                   of   Quantity                         Average
                             shipment  (kilogram   Percent       Total      unit
Method of transport                 s         s)  of total       value     value
---------------------------  --------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Vessel, container               2,094  49,509,35     85.50  $54,303,15     $1.10
                                               8                     3
Rail, container                   269  5,425,463      9.37   7,157,300      1.32
Vessel, non-container              86  2,224,616      3.84   2,419,891      1.09
Truck, non-container               50    623,823      1.08     613,061      0.98
Rail, non-container                 5     92,644      0.16      98,536      1.06
Air carrier,                       16     30,881      0.05      80,204      2.60
 non-container
================================================================================
Total                           2,520  57,906,78    100.00  $64,672,14     $1.12
                                               5                     5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Bureau of the Census data, GAO computations. 



                                                                     Table X.8
                                                      
                                                            Comparison of Census and GAO
                                                         Computations of Unit Value for 10
                                                               Selected Transactions


                              Quantity                      Quantity
                              (kilogra     Total      Unit  (kilogra     Total      Unit         Wrong   Wrong     Wrong
Number                             ms)     value     value       ms)     value     value  None   HTS     quantity  value   Effect of errors
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  -----  ------  --------  ------  ------------------------
1                                   23    $5,392   $234.43        23    $5,392   $234.43         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category covering
                                                                                                                           chocolate and other food
                                                                                                                           preparations containing
                                                                                                                           cocoa (HTS
                                                                                                                           1806.20.80.60). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

2                                1,126    16,800     14.92    11,226    16,800      1.50                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                                                                           10,100 kilograms. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value change.

3                               10,800    28,285      2.62   108,000    28,285      0.26         X       X                 Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category of cocoa (HTS
                                                                                                                           1803.20.00.00), also
                                                                                                                           quantity understated by
                                                                                                                           97,200 kilograms. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

4                               19,958    27,280      1.37    19,958    27,280      1.37  X

5                               18,144    22,243      1.23    18,144    22,243      1.23  X

6                               20,523    24,675      1.20       400     2,465      6.16                 X         X       Quantity and total value
                                                                                                                           overstated by 20,123
                                                                                                                           kilograms and $22,210,
                                                                                                                           respectively. No effect
                                                                                                                           on duties and fees. Unit
                                                                                                                           value changed.

7                              108,864   118,934      1.09   108,864   118,934      1.09  X

8                               18,564     7,283      0.39    18,314     7,131      0.39                 X         X       Quantity and total value
                                                                                                                           overstated by 250
                                                                                                                           kilograms and $152,
                                                                                                                           respectively. Duty
                                                                                                                           overpaid by $1.55 and
                                                                                                                           fees overpaid by $0.26.

9                               72,000    17,287      0.24    72,000    17,287      0.24         X                         Entry should have been
                                                                                                                           made under another
                                                                                                                           category of cocoa (HTS
                                                                                                                           1803.20.00.00). No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees.

10                                   0    14,940      0.00     8,164    14,940      1.83                 X                 Quantity understated by
                                                                                                                           8,164 kilograms. No
                                                                                                                           effect on duties and
                                                                                                                           fees. Unit value
                                                                                                                           changed.

===================================================================================================================================================
Total                          270,002  $283,119       N/A   365,093  $260,686       N/A  3      3       5         2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  N/A = Not applicable. 

Source:  Customs Service and Bureau of the Census data, GAO
computations. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix XI
COMMENTS FROM THE CUSTOMS SERVICE
=========================================================== Appendix X



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix XII
COMMENTS FROM THE BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
=========================================================== Appendix X



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
======================================================== Appendix XIII

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Darryl W.  Dutton, Assistant Director
Barry J.  Seltser, Assistant Director
Delois N.  Richardson, Programmer

ATLANTA FIELD OFFICE

Frankie L.  Fulton, Evaluator-in-Charge
Paul W.  Rhodes, Senior Evaluator
Cheri Y.  White, Evaluator
Paul R.  Clift, Computer Analyst

