Application of the First Sale Rule to Italian Imports into the USA

The First Sale Rule (“first sale rule”) is a customs strategy that allows reducing the taxable value of goods imported into the USA by calculating duties on the price paid in the first transaction rather than on the last sale price at the time of importation. In practice, in the presence of a chain of international sales, the US importer can declare as the customs value the original price paid by the first buyer (e.g., the foreign intermediary) to the producer, if certain legal requirements are met. This allows for lowering the tax base on which ad valorem duties are calculated, with a potential savings on customs duties proportional to the intermediary's markup.

In the United States, this rule has been in effect for over 30 years and has been confirmed by various legal precedents (e.g., case Nissho Iwai). In 2008, when the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) attempted to eliminate it, a legislative intervention by Congress reaffirmed the validity keeping it available to importers (Food, Conservation and Energy Act 2008). Since then, however, it has been mandatory for the importer declare the use of the First Sale at the time of goods entry into customs, so as to allow authorities more targeted controls. Despite the clear advantages, the adoption of the First Sale Rule requires rigorous due diligence and collaboration along the supply chain, which is why its adoption is still limited: it is estimated that in 2023 only the 4% of the value of US imports was valued using the first sale method (involving approximately the 10% of importers). However, in some key sectors – first and foremost fashion and footwear – this practice is now an important tool for customs cost optimization, and is gaining attention in other sectors as well in view of growing competitive and tariff pressure.

Below is an in-depth analysis of the concrete application of the First Sale Rule in four sectors of excellence of the Made in Italy (fashion, agri-food, furniture, cosmetics), with details of potential benefits (duty savings), practical cases, procedures/documentation required by CBP, as well as risks and critical issues specifications. Each section includes updated regulatory references, operational guidelines, and useful examples for Italian exporting companies interested in adopting this strategy to enter or strengthen their presence in the US market.

Fashion and Apparel Sector

The sector fashion, clothing and footwear is historically the biggest beneficiary of the First Sale Rule. This is due to the relatively customs duties elevated that the United States imposes on many textile and footwear products, combined with the often multi-stage supply chain in this sector. Suffice it to say that footwear, yarns, fabrics, and apparel in general are subject to very high import tariffs compared to other goods. For example, a garment manufactured in Asia and resold through a European intermediary may be subject to U.S. duties well in excess of 15% of its value. In some cases, the charges exceed the 20-30% ad valorem (as is the case with certain synthetic-fiber garments) and for certain types of footwear, they may even approach or exceed 30% (depending on the material and unit value). This means that even a moderate markup along the supply chain generates significant savings if the First Sale doctrine is applied.

Practical application: In fashion, a multi-tiered structure is common: for example, an Italian brand can have garments manufactured by a third-party workshop (in Italy or abroad), purchase from the supplier at a certain price, and then resell to a distributor or its own importer in the USA with a markup. By applying the First Sale rule, the American importer (often the brand's US distributor) declares to customs the first sale price“ paid by the brand to the original manufacturer, instead of the higher price paid by the distributor to the brand. In this way, duties are calculated on the ex-factory value. For example, suppose a men's polyester suit Made in Italy is manufactured by a third-party contractor at a cost of 70 € and then sold by the Italian brand to its U.S. importer for 100 €. With a customs duty rate of 27.3% (actual tariff rate for men’s jackets made of synthetic fibers), without the First Sale rule, the duty would be €27.30 per piece, whereas by applying the First Sale rule (€70), the duty drops to €19.11, with a savings of €8.19 per unit (approximately 30% less in duties). This simple calculation shows how, over large volumes, the First Sale principle can result in savings of tens or hundreds of thousands of euros in duties. On average, for garments subject to a duty of 12-16% and with markup margins of 20-30%, using the First Sale principle results in a reduction in the final cost of around 2-5%. Even more marked are the benefits for footwear, where MFN duties often range from 8% to 20% depending on the product category (leather, textiles, sportswear, etc.), and where distribution margins tend to be high: it is no coincidence that footwear and apparel are the categories where the greatest savings from First Sale are realized. Official studies have confirmed that the sector textile-apparel-footwear has the highest adoption rate of the First Sale Rule, precisely because of the high tariffs: an analysis by the USITC showed that only in this sector did an above-average utilization rate and average duties well above the average coexist

Examples and case studies: Many large global fashion companies have been using this mechanism for years to reduce the cost of importing into the U.S. For example, several American apparel retailers have implemented “first sale” programs, saving up to 20% of the annual duties owed—amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. For Italian luxury brands, the “first sale” approach may be less common—they often manufacture in-house and have high profit margins, reducing the incentive—but it becomes extremely valuable for brands premium o fast fashion that produce outside of Italy. A practical case is that of Italian companies that they produce in China or in the Far East and then export to the U.S.: these companies have seen tariffs rise due to the punitive tariffs imposed during the U.S.-China trade war, and have found the “first-sale doctrine” to be a “lifeline” to mitigate the impact. For example, an Italian sportswear company with factories in Asia was able to reduce its duty base not only on the normal duty (~12%) but also on the additional duty of 25% (Section 301) applied to Chinese products, resulting in significant overall relief. In general, any fashion supply chain Made in Italy that includes an intermediary (logistics centers in Europe, trading company, buying office, etc.) can apply: a USITC study found that almost 46% of importers that use the First Sale fall into the clothing/textile/leather goods category, a sign of its relevance for this sector.

Procedures and documentation (CBP): to take advantage of the First Sale, the’Importer of Record The USA (the official importer) must follow a careful procedure and keep evidentiary documents. First, the “First Sale” option must be indicated in the entry summary as required by regulations (via a specific electronic declaration to CBP). This requirement—introduced in 2008—signals to CBP that the declared value is based on a sale prior to the last one. Furthermore, the transaction must meet three key conditions established by customs practice and rulings:

• Bona fide sale: The transfer of goods between the initial producer and the intermediary must constitute a genuine sale with a transfer of ownership, not a mere fictitious accounting transaction.
• Arm's-length transaction: The manufacturer and the intermediary must be independent and unaffiliated (or, if they are related parties, the sale must take place at normal market values). In essence, the “first sale” price must reflect normal commercial dynamics (arm’s length).
• Destination USA from the very first step: from the moment of the first sale, the goods must be designated for export to the United States
  . This can be proven, for example, by the fact that the goods travel directly from the producer to the final importing country, or that they bear specific characteristics/labels required for the US market from the origin.

To demonstrate compliance with these requirements, and above all to support the value of the first sale in case of an audit, it is essential to prepare and keep a set of detailed documents relating to all steps of the transaction. In particular, CBP may request (during customs clearance or subsequently in an audit) documentation such as:

• Sales contracts or purchase orders between the manufacturer and the intermediary, and between the intermediary and the US buyer, with terms and conditions;
• Commercial invoices issued in each transaction of the chain (from the producer to the intermediary, and from the intermediary to the US importer);
• Proof of payment (e.g., letters of credit, bank transfers) certifying the payments made at various levels;
• Shipping documents (bills of lading, transport documents) and certificates of origin, to track the movement of the goods;
• Any production instructions or specifications from the initial buyer to the manufacturer, as well as elements showing adaptations for the US market (designs, labels with English brands or indications, barcodes, etc.);
• Compliance tests of the product to US regulations from the very beginning (e.g., textile labels with country of origin and composition in English, care labels, etc., mandatory for clothing).

In the fashion sector, this means, for example, gathering all contracts with foreign suppliers, the purchase invoices for the garments from the manufacturer (typically located in Asia/EU) and for resale to the US company, the packing lists, and showing that already at the factory the garments bore the Made in Italy or another requested brand and perhaps English-language sizes/labels if intended for the States. Documentary compliance can be burdensome, but it is essential: only in this way will US Customs recognize the “first sale” value”. Fortunately, many fashion houses have a well-structured supply chain control and can integrate these requirements into their logistical-administrative workflows with the help of customs brokers.

Risks, critical issues, and limitations (fashion): Despite the advantages, the use of the First Sale Rule presents practical challenges. In the fashion business, the first obstacle is often the reluctance of actors to share sensitive informationconvincing suppliers and intermediaries to reveal their costs and margins to the importing client (or vice versa) can be difficult. This requires building a relationship of trust and sometimes robust confidentiality agreements. Furthermore, the administrative complexity grows: for each collection/season it may be necessary to manage hundreds of SKUs and related separate documentation, which involves investing internal resources or specialized customs consultants. It must also be kept in mind that CBP carefully examines these operations: if the structure is not fully compliant the criteria (such as sales not truly at “market price” or goods not explicitly destined for the USA), the Agency can reject the First Sale by collecting unpaid duties and imposing penalties. In a recent case (February 2023), an American company was fined for $1.3 million for having improperly applied the First Sale rule with fictitious prices: in that case, the importer instructed suppliers on what values to declare, without a true free market interplay, thereby altering the basis of the first sale. This episode demonstrates that artificially forcing the procedure is dangerous. In the fashion sector, attention must also be paid to collateral regulations: for example, the’preferential origin (if you try to pass off a garment as “Made in Italy” when it is actually produced elsewhere, you enter the realm of labeling fraud), or requirements such as FTC labeling(For wool products, labels must comply with the Wool Products Labeling Act, and this information must also appear on the invoice)—all of which must be coordinated with the First Sale strategy to avoid contradictions. Finally, the cost-benefit ratio: For companies with low volumes or narrow margins, the savings may not justify the organizational costs; Conversely, those who import large quantities of apparel taxed at 15% can gain significant competitive advantages (lower final prices or higher margins), thereby justifying the investment.

In short, the First Sale Rule in the fashion industry is highly advisable for companies with complex international supply chains and heavy duties—typically those that produce outside of Italy and import into the US via distributors. average savings Duties in this sector range from a minimum of ~5% up to peaks of 20–30% in cases of very high duties and surcharges. Success stories include both major U.S. fast-fashion retailers and Italian manufacturers in the footwear and sportswear sectors with offshored factories. With adequate customs consulting and an integrated document management system, Italian fashion houses can leverage the First Sale rule to maintain competitive prices in the U.S. market without compromising the perceived quality of “Made in Italy” products.

Agri-Food Sector

Industry Italian agri-food industry – including food, beverages and agricultural products – presents different characteristics. US duties on food products tend to be more moderate compared to clothing, with an average of around 5-10% ad valorem. Many basic food items are even exempt (e.g., coffee, tea, spices) or subject to very low specific rates (e.g., raisins $0.018/kg)

, while others, especially typical Italian specialties, face non-negligible percentage tariffs: dry pasta ~6,4%, balsamic vinegar ~5%, mineral water ~$.08/liter (approximately 2–3%), chocolate ~4.3% + $0.4/kg, etc. Cheese and dairy products may be subject to ad valorem duties of around 10–15% (if within the tariff quota) in addition to quantitative quotas, while wines and spirits are taxed based on alcohol content at specific rates (e.g., still wine ~$0.36 per liter, sparkling wine ~$0.67/L). In general, The range is wide, but few agri-food products reach tariff rates as high as those in textiles. Exceptions include certain goods “protected” by US agriculture: for example, tobacco Processed dairy products and certain milk derivatives may exceed the 20-30% threshold or be subject to very onerous combined value/weight duties; or processed meats, which are also subject to USDA inspections. Furthermore, in recent times, trade disputes have led to the imposition of punitive tariffs: a prime example is the case of the additional duties of 25% imposed in 2019 on several European food products (including PDO cheeses such as Parmigiano Reggiano, Pecorino, certain cured meats and liqueurs) in the context of the Boeing/Airbus dispute. These extraordinary tariffs, although suspended since 2021, have made it even more attractive for importers to find ways to reduce the taxable base.

Practical application of the First Sale: in the food sector, the applicability of the rule depends very much on distributive model. Many Italian food producers export directly through US importers/distributors, without any further intermediate steps: for example, a pasta factory from Gragnano sells through an American importer specialized in Italian products. In such cases, there is no “multiple sale” prior to import – there is only a single step (producer → US importer) – therefore No First Sale can be applied (the import value is already the first-hand one). However, there are frequent scenarios involving an intermediary: for example:

• An Italian export consortium or trader groups together products from multiple small producers (olive oil, pasta, preserves, wines, etc.) and resells them as single lot to a US buyer. The manufacturer-to-trader and trader-to-US-importer sales constitute a case of multi-tier transaction.
• A large US buyer (e.g., a grocery chain) prefers to purchase factory gate from Italian producers through their own European purchasing center. In practice, the chain creates a company in Europe that buys food products from Italian companies and then resells them to itself (the US branch) for import.
• Some Italian beverage companies (e.g., wine, spirits) sell to US importers through international agents or brokers who purchase the product and resell it, adding a commission.

In all these situations, if it can be proven that the initial sale (e.g., Italian manufacturer → European trader) was made for export to the USA, the First Sale rule becomes applicable. This means the US importer will be able to declare the value paid to the Italian manufacturer, rather than the higher price paid to the intermediary.

Let's do a practical example: an Italian cheese factory sells a batch of pecorino cheese to a European distributor 8 €/kg, and the distributor resells it to the US importer at 10 €/kg. The U.S. duty (let's assume 15% ad valorem for that type of cheese within the quota) would amount to 1,50 € per kg with a value of 10 €. By applying the First Sale rule, the taxable value drops to 8 € and the duty to 1,20 €/kg, with a savings of €0.30 per kg (equivalent to a 20% reduction in duties). For large shipments (e.g., a 20,000-kg container), this amounts to a savings of €6,000 per shipment. Even though food duties are lower on average, the potential for savings in absolute terms can be relevant given the high volumes and revenues typical of agri-food exports (think of wine: even a 6 cent/L duty on millions of exported liters can generate thousands of euros in difference). Furthermore, First Sale can help partially offset extra costs such as refrigerated transport expenses, insurance, etc., by lowering the customs cleared cost unit landed cost.

Cases and examples: one of the agri-food sectors where the First Sale has been most widely used is that of dried fruit and fruit preserves. According to CBP data, sectors such as “fruit and nuts” show a significant share of imports under First Sale, despite having average high tariffs.

. This happens because the trade of dried fruit/powders/agricultural products often takes place through international brokers: e.g., a large broker buys Italian and Turkish hazelnuts, blends or repacks them, and sells them to US buyers; if set up correctly, the US importer can declare the price paid by the broker to the original producers. Another example can be the’olive oil: If a European wholesaler buys bulk olive oil from Italian mills at 3 €/L and resells it bottled to a U.S. customer at 5 €/L, the duty (which, fortunately, is 0% for virgin olive oil, but let’s assume it were 5%) would drop from 0.25 €/L to 0.15 €/L under the First Sale rule. Furthermore, in the wine sector, consider a wine with a tariff of 6.3 cents/L: an international intermediary purchases wine from various Italian wineries at 1.5 €/bottle and resells it in the U.S. at 2 €/bottle; the duty per case (12 bottles ~9 L) would drop from $0.567 to approximately $0.378—not a huge difference, but over thousands of cases, the savings can add up. In practice, the First Sale is used when there is a distribution chain outside of Italyexport consortia, global food commodity traders, foreign logistics hubs used to consolidate shipments destined for the USA.

Procedures and documentation (agri-food) the basic requirements to be met with CBP are the same as those described for fashion (bona fide sale, arm’s length, US destination), as well as the need to provide invoices, contracts and proofs of payment of each step. In the food & beverage sector, however, there are further documentary and regulatory aspects to be considered, related to the nature of the products:

• First of all, all food products imported into the USA are subject to the controls of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The importer must ensure compliance with requirements such as the registration of the foreign facility with the FDA, the prior notice of import (Prior Notice) and, for food, participation in the FSVP program (Foreign Supplier Verification Program) which requires knowing and verifying foreign suppliers. The use of First Sale does not exempt from these obligations – rather, it makes them complementary: the importer who prepares the First Sale dossier will have already gathered information on the actual manufacturer (first seller), which aligns with the FSVP requirement to have the data of the royal producer of the food. At customs, in addition to invoices, documents such as health certificates, certificates of origin (e.g., will therefore often be required. PDO/PGI), USDA certifications (for meat, dairy), etc., all issued in the name of the original producer. It is important that these documents are consistent with the two-tier schemafor example, a health certificate for cheese must state the producing dairy (first seller), and the commercial invoice from that dairy to the intermediary. This provides further proof that the goods were intended for export and clearly identifies the origin.
• A typical piece of evidence for “US destination” in the agri-food sector is the’compliant labeling: if the manufacturer already affixes nutritional labels and ingredients in English according to FDA standards, or labels with mandatory US information (e.g. Surgeon General warning for alcoholic beverages, importer/bottler indications in English for wines, this is a strong indicator that the batch was intended for the US market from the beginning.
• From a procedural standpoint, the US importer will have to declare the first sale value and could be subject to both CBP and FDA/USDA inspections. It is therefore necessary to prepare a complete file to be presented in the event of an intensive inspection. For food products, this may mean presenting, in addition to first- and second-tier invoices, also analysis results, health certificates, ingredient lists, etc., to simultaneously satisfy food safety checks.

In summary, First Sale documentation in the food sector includes contracts, invoices, and proof of payment as seen previously, but It needs to be coordinated with the food compliance documentation. It is advisable for the importer to work closely with their Italian suppliers and any intermediaries to align all documents (for example, ensuring that the quantities and lots on the different invoices match, that the health certificates cover exactly the lots sold in the first transaction, etc.). The mistake to avoid is presenting a “first sale” invoice at customs and then attaching health or origin documentation that may refer to the second seller—this would trigger doubts about the transparency of the transaction.

Risks, critical issues, and limitations (agri-food): A peculiar challenge of the food sector is the perishability and sensitivity of the goods. If the application of the First Sale causes delays or complications in customs clearance (for example, because officials want to verify additional documents), there is a risk that fresh or perishable products may suffer damage or quality degradation while waiting. Therefore, for extremely fresh products (fruit, fresh cheeses, etc.), some importers might prefer a quick standard clearance rather than a more complex procedure, unless the financial gain is substantial. Another limitation is given by the tariff rate quotas (TRQ): For certain products, such as cheese, sugar, and tobacco, there are import quotas; once these quotas are exhausted, the duty becomes prohibitive (even exceeding 100%). In such cases, the First Sale method reduces the declared value, but if the duty is specific or otherwise very high, the percentage savings may be marginal. For example, if a cheese were subject to a 100% duty outside the quota, reducing the base by 20% lowers the duty paid from 100 to 80% of the final price—an improvement, but the product may still not be competitive. Therefore, the strategy works best within standard quantitative limits or for products not subject to quotas.

A critical aspect is ensuring that first sale is truly destined for US exportin the food sector, it happens that intermediaries buy products to destine them to various global markets. It is therefore necessary to collect clear evidence for the stocks destined for the USA (purchase orders with the wording “For US export”, packaging with US labels, etc.). Furthermore, sometimes the intermediary can add value to the product (e.g., further aging, final packaging, assembly of gourmet baskets): if this process alters the origin or nature of the product, it could complicate the eligibility of the First Sale or require proving that such processing does not prejudice the original destination for US export. For example, if a trader purchases wheels of Parmesan cheese, ages them for another 6 months, and cuts/packages them before shipping to America, CBP might consider the relevant sale to be the one after aging (the operation added significant value). It must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Another risk: the commercial competition. If the US importer is also a retail distributor, disclosing the first-sale price (e.g., the one paid to the small producer) could put them in a difficult position with their own customers (large chains) if they were to find out, perhaps indirectly during a CBP audit. In general, however, the data provided to CBP is confidential, so this risk is limited, but psychologically some operators fear the cost transparency.

Finally, as with any sector, there remains the need to accuracy and complianceItalian agri-food benefits from brand value, and any customs issues (e.g., under-invoicing disputes) can undermine its reputation. It is therefore crucial to use the First Sale rule only when fully justifiable and documentable. If well implemented, for many exporters of top-tier Italian food products, First Sale can free up resources (saved duties) to be reinvested in promotion or price competitiveness on the US market—a significant advantage in a sector where distribution margins are tight and foreign competition (e.g., duty-free South American or Asian products) is fierce.

Furniture and Design Sector

The sector decor, furniture and design represents another pillar of Made in Italy. From the US customs perspective, furniture products generally enjoy MFN duties very low or null. In fact, most furniture falls under customs headings with rates ranging from 0% to 5%. For example, the wooden furniture Living room or bedroom furniture (heading 9403) is often subject to an ad valorem duty of 0% or 0.5%; upholstered chairs and office furniture are subject to duties ranging from 0 to 2.5%; various furniture components (lamps, mattresses, metal furniture) rarely exceed 4%. This means that the customs duty cost has little impact on the final price of Italian furniture in the USA (especially compared to VAT and duties affecting furniture imported into the EU, which are often much heavier). Consequently, the absolute benefit The savings achievable through the First Sale rule in this sector are lower than in other sectors: reducing the taxable base by 20% when the duty is 1% results in a savings of just 0.2% on the value of the goods. However, there are cases where even a few basis points matter—especially for high-value furnishings or large-scale contract projects—and where the supply chain involves multiple players.

Practical applicability: many Italian furniture companies they manufacture in-house in Italy and they sell through distributors or showrooms in the United States. In such traditional situations (manufacturer → US importer), the First Sale does not come into play. However, there are some operating models where an intermediary appears:

• Contract manufacturing: Some design brands commission the production of furniture or components to third-party contractors (often small carpentry shops/artisans in Italy or Eastern Europe). The brand purchases the furniture from the third-party manufacturer and then resells it to its foreign subsidiaries. Example: a lighting brand commissions the manufacture of lamps from a Venetian company for €100, and then sells them to its US subsidiary for €150. Here, the manufacturer→brand and brand→US sale would allow First Sale (if the US brand imports directly from the Italian factory with a “first sale” invoice at €100).
• Trading company / Foreign purchasing office: In some cases, US contract companies or retailers buy Italian furniture through European operators. For example, a UK procurement company collects furniture orders from US architects and buys the furniture from various Italian manufacturers, then resells it overseas. Here too, a double sale is created.
• International assemblies and components: A complex piece of furniture may feature components produced in different countries and assembled prior to export. If the assembler acts as an intermediary who purchases parts (e.g., metal bases from Italy, marble tops from Greece) and resells the completed piece of furniture, the first sale (parts from the Italian manufacturer) could potentially be valued separately.

It must be emphasized that, given the very low taxation For most furniture, the First Sale Rule is rarely applied in the furniture industry. However, in recent years, some importers have begun to consider it due to two factors: the increase in supplies manufactured outside Italy (e.g., parts from Asia) and the pursuit of every possible efficiency on low-margin projects. One factor that should not be overlooked is that if an Italian piece of furniture contains components or materials from countries subject to additional tariffs (e.g., steel or aluminum subject to Section 232 tariffs, or Chinese components subject to 301 or 25% tariffs), lowering the declared value of those components through the First Sale method can generate indirect savings on those special tariffs as well. For example, an Italian kitchen manufacturer that imports hinges or metal parts from China for €100 and resells them to its U.S. subsidiary—integrated into the kitchen—for €130 could, by declaring the initial cost as €100, reduce the impact of both the standard tariff (say, 0-2%) and the 25% Section 301 duty on the Chinese parts (which would be calculated based on a value of 100 instead of 130). Therefore, although the furniture tariff itself is low, the first-sale doctrine can help mitigate external tariff costs incorporated into the product.

Numerical example: let us consider a set of designer furniture (a table + 4 chairs) sold by the Italian manufacturer to a European intermediary a 5.000 €, and resold to the US importer (who will set up a store) to 6.000 €. Let’s assume a duty rate of 1% for that category (wooden furniture). Without the First Sale rule, the import duty would be €60 per set; with the First Sale rule (duty calculated on €5,000), it drops to €50, with 10 € savings per set (0.17% of the value). On a shipment of 100 sets, you would save €1,000. These aren’t huge amounts, but in contract projects or furniture supply for large spaces, even a few percentage points can make a difference on tight margins. If, on the other hand, the duty is 0% (a common case for many pieces of furniture), First Sale obviously does not provide an immediate benefit—although, as mentioned, it can reduce any other proportional fees such as Merchandise Processing Fee (0.3464% on imports, although subject to a cap) and provides a slight advantage over them.

Procedures and documentation (furniture): The process with CBP does not present substantial differences: it is always necessary to correctly declare the First Sale at the time of import and provide contracts, invoices, and payments for the transactions involved. In this sector, however, certain specific compliance documents come into play: for example, many pieces of furniture contain wood or wood derivatives, and are therefore subject to Lacey Act (obligation to declare the species and origin of imported wood). An importer applying the First Sale rule must ensure that the Lacey Act declarations match the actual supplier (first seller) and the original wood species. This means, for example, that if the initial manufacturer supplies Croatian oak wood to the European trader, the declaration must indicate Croatian oak and the manufacturer. Fortunately, this does not conflict with First Sale; on the contrary, it strengthens it because it demonstrates transparency regarding the material origin. Similarly, any safety requirements must be met: upholstered furniture must comply with flammability standards (e.g., TB117-2013 in California) – the importer must collect certificates from the original manufacturer and can include them in the document package.

Another aspect is that the furniture sector is among those monitored by specific Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE)at CBP (the Furniture, Appliances & Industrial Machinery CEE) that centralizes customs expertise regarding these products. This means that if a furniture importer uses the First Sale rule, their case will likely be reviewed by officials who specialize in the sector and are well-versed in furniture pricing dynamics. It is therefore essential that the declared values be reasonable and well-supported: the CEE will compare the values per piece, material, etc., against market conditions. For example, declaring a “too low” first-sale value for a well-known designer piece of furniture could raise red flags. In general, however, since margins in the industry are known to be high, it is not unusual for a distributor to apply a 50–100% markup. Therefore, if a brand were to sell a piece for €10,000 that costs the manufacturer €5,000, CBP might still accept €5,000 as the dutiable value if all requirements are met.

Risks and limitations (furnishing): the main consideration is the cost-benefit ratio. Implementing the First Sale Doctrine involves fixed costs (administrative, legal) that may be difficult to justify if the customs duty savings are in the range of 1% or less. Many furniture companies prefer to invest these resources in customer service or marketing rather than in minor customs optimization efforts. Therefore, the First Sale principle in the furniture industry makes sense primarily in situations where: (1) volumes or values are extremely high (e.g., supplies for entire hotels or cruise ships—where even minimal savings add up to substantial amounts), or (2) when the furniture has components subject to special or high duties (as mentioned, metal or glass elements from countries with additional duties). In these combined cases, the procedure can recover a few more percentage points.

Another limitation: many Italian design companies focus on brand value and exclusivity. Disclosing production costs might not be well received internally. Even though CBP keeps such data secret, the company itself must maintain a certain degree of internal transparency. Furthermore, some companies do not want to “reveal” to their importers or retailers how much they pay third-party suppliers. For example, if the company X assigns the production of a chair to a craftsman from Brianza for €500, and then resells it for €1,000 to the US distributor; the latter, in order to apply the First Sale rule, would learn of the €500 price. This could generate commercial tensions (the distributor might try in the future to contact the manufacturer directly to secure better prices, bypassing the brand). For this reason, in the furniture sector, First Sale is often adopted when the importer is a wholly owned subsidiary of the manufacturer, so there are no third parties to whom information must be disclosed, or when there is a very solid agreement between the brand and the exclusive distributor.

On the customs side, compliance risks are lower than elsewhere (given the lower historical attention on this sector, which has not been considered “sensitive” in terms of fraud), but they are not absent. Any artifice in the structuring of sales must be avoided. For example, a fake intermediary vendor must not be created solely to lower the value (CBP would easily uncover it by requesting documents and verifying the actual economic substance of the transaction). Furthermore, if the manufacturer and the intermediary are affiliated companies (a possible scenario: some groups have controlled trading houses), it is necessary to pass the arm's length test – i.e., demonstrating that the intercompany price reflects market values (this can be done by comparing it with similar sales to third parties or by showing that it covers costs plus a reasonable profit). This adds a level of analysis (similar to transfer pricing) to be conducted with care.

In conclusion, the First Sale Rule in the furniture sector it is less widespread but it is still applicable in specific contexts. The average percentage savings are small (generally <2%), but on high-value orders, they can amount to thousands of euros. The advice for furniture and design companies is to consider this option, especially if they are outsourcing part of the production (e.g., components in Asia) or if they operate through distribution hubs outside Italy. In such cases, collaborating with their U.S. importer and customs consultants can lead to the seamless implementation of “turnkey” First Sale programs, while also taking advantage of the sector’s low risk profile. Examples of international success include manufacturers of furniture components (handles, hardware) who, having factories in China and Vietnam, import into the U.S. by leveraging the first-sale defense to mitigate the additional 25% duty, as well as some large furniture chains that centralize their EU purchases and have managed to slightly reduce the cost of importing into the U.S.—a significant advantage given the high volume of goods handled.

Cosmetics and Personal Care Sector

The sector cosmetics and personal care (make-up, skincare, perfumes, hair products, etc.) is a sector in which Italy plays a significant role both as a contract manufacturer for major global brands and with its own emerging brands. From the perspective of US tariffs, cosmetics mostly fall under industrial products with reduced duties: many beauty items enter duty-free or with symbolic tariffs. For example, lipstick, lip gloss, eyeshadows and eye makeup fall under HTS heading 3304 and currently they do not pay duty on imports into the U.S. (rate 0%. Also, the skin creams and facial cosmetics are generally duty-free. hair products (shampoo, dyes) and i perfumes Instead, they have low but not zero rates: typically 2.5% or 5%. In particular, the perfumes and eau de toilettes Alcohol-containing beverages are subject to a 5% ad valorem duty, in addition to a federal alcohol tax (approximately $13.50 per gallon). Therefore, the average tariff In this sector, we could estimate it to be below 2%. This implies that any savings achievable through the First Sale are generally very modest in percentage terms. However, the cosmetics sector features some multi-tier supply chains: just think of major French luxury brands that have make-up produced in Italy and then import to the USA, or Italian brands that sell through US distributors. Furthermore, export volumes can be high and unit margins per product are sometimes low (especially for “masstige” or private label cosmetics). In these cases, even shaving off one or two percentage points on costs can be attractive.

Practical application of the First Sale: let's imagine a typical supply chain: An Italian cosmetics manufacturer (often a contract manufacturer) produces a batch of lipsticks on behalf of a foreign brand (which may be French, American, or even Italian itself). The brand purchases the lipsticks from the contract manufacturer at a certain price and resells them to its U.S. distributor/importer at a higher price. This is exactly the situation in which the First Sale rule can be leveraged: the U.S. importer (which is often the brand itself or one of its subsidiaries) reports the first-tier cost—that is, the price invoiced by the Italian contract manufacturer. For example, if the Italian manufacturer sells mascara to the brand for €3 per unit, and the brand sells them to its U.S. entity for €5 each, the duty (let’s say 0%, which is negligible in this case) would still be calculated based on €3 under the First Sale rule, thereby also reducing proportional fees (such as the MPF). In a more costly scenario, let’s consider a perfume: an Italian company supplies fragrances to the company X at €10 a bottle, and X (French) sells them to its U.S. subsidiary for €20; the 5% duty would drop from €1.00 to €0.50 per unit, saving €0.50. Out of 100,000 bottles exported annually, that’s a savings of 50,000 €—not bad for covering marketing expenses, for example. So, when there is a third-party contractor or an intermediary in between, the First Sale doctrine is also applicable to cosmetics.

It must be said that many cosmetic imports into the US happen directly: e.g., the Italian brand ships to the US distributor with a single transaction, or the brand directly has its own manufacturing entity and then a commercial one in the US (in such a case there is no separate “first sale” if in-house production). But in the current context, where the contract manufacturing it is very widespread (Italy is one of the world leaders in cosmetic OEM), and the margins to implement the First Sale are there.

Sector examples: A classic example is that of luxury skincare products: they are often formulated and packaged in Italy by specialized companies, then sold to the brand owners at cost and resold on the U.S. market at much higher prices. If a high-end brand purchases an anti-aging cream from a Milan-based laboratory for €8 per unit and resells it to its U.S. division for €20, it could declare €8 as the value (subject to First Sale approval), paying, for example, €0 in duties (duty-free face creams) instead of €0 (no difference if it’s duty-free—in this case, nothing changes except for the minimum processing fee). But let’s consider a mid-range brand that has nail polish and mascara manufactured in Italy: it buys them for €2 each and sells them for €3 to its U.S. importer/distributor. The U.S. tariff code for these cosmetics is 0%, so technically it doesn’t save on duties; however, declaring a lower value slightly reduces the processing fee (MPF) – a tiny but still significant advantage for frequent shipments. Furthermore, it could reduce any Section 301 duties if, for example, certain components (packaging, ingredients) were sourced from China with their costs factored in.

Another interesting example: cosmetic products are often imported into kit or gift sets (e.g., a makeup bag containing various items) that CBP sometimes reclassifies based on the main component. The First Sale rule would apply to each component in this case. For example, a makeup set consisting of a case and cosmetics: the case comes from China, and the cosmetics from Italy; an intermediary assembles the set in Italy and sells it to a U.S. retailer. By declaring the original values (the case at its Chinese cost, the cosmetics at their Italian cost), the tax base is split so that Section 301 25% applies to the case (China) and 0% applies to the cosmetics, thereby avoiding the payment of margins on those costs. It’s complex but feasible.

Procedures and documentation (cosmetics): As always, solid proof of every transaction is needed. In the cosmetics case, the manufacturer and the brand often have supply contracts: these contracts are valuable to present because they show the agreed-upon price and perhaps the destination (the contract manufacturer knows the batch will be exported to the USA with brand X, allowing them to include specific requirements for the FDA). The documentation requested by CBP—invoices, payments, orders—is standard. In addition, this is where it powerfully comes into play FDA regulation: Imported cosmetics are subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Customs often works with the FDA to detain non-compliant products (e.g., those containing prohibited ingredients or with non-compliant labeling). Therefore, to convince CBP that the goods were “intended for the U.S.,” the importer can demonstrate that The FDA requirements were met right from the start. For example, presenting the approved label drafts, with ingredients in English, net weight in ounces and grams, name and address of the US responsible party (required by cosmetics legislation) can be decisive. A useful quote: in a customs ruling on a perfume, it is emphasized that “This product is subject to the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration”- as a reminder that the documents must also satisfy that authority. Therefore, in practice, the importer should collect:

• He certificate of analysis and the manufacturer's ingredient list, to demonstrate compliance (and attach it if requested by the FDA);
• L’final label that will be applied (often third-party manufacturers produce with neutral or international labels, then the brand labels by region – if the US labeling is done in Italy before shipping, even better, because it indicates a US destination);
• Any potential notices or certifications (e.g., if the product contains colors subject to FDA certification, the certification proofs).

From a CBP perspective, this evidence reinforces that the “sale for export to the US” condition is met. In addition, the importer must indicate "First Sale" in the entry system and keep all records available for 5 years (as per recordkeeping obligations). It may be useful to involve the customs broker in advance, explaining the first sale structure so that you can correctly fill in the statistical data item and the rule usage indicator.

Risks and critical issues (cosmetics): here too, the the game is worth the candleOften not, if we only look at the duty. Many cosmetics importers prefer the easy way (declining the last price) since the duty is zero or negligible anyway. First Sale in this sector can have more of a strategic value for some actors: for example, luxury perfume distributors could slightly reduce import costs to invest more in marketing, or low-margin cosmetics importers (e.g., mass-market products) could use every small saving to compete on price.

The main risk is related to FDA complianceif the importer focuses on the First Sale scheme but neglects to fully ensure regulatory compliance, they could incur seizures or waste by the FDA (which have absolute priority, as they are goods potentially affecting health). For example, if a shipment arrives and the FDA finds non-compliant labels or prohibited ingredients, it will be blocked regardless of the declared customs value – rendering any effort useless. Therefore, the company must have a robust quality/regulatory system operating alongside the customs one.

Another point: cosmetics, like over-the-counter drugs, sometimes undergo customs reclassifications complex (e.g., a borderline product can be classified as a medicinal product if it contains active ingredients). This can alter the duty rates. First Sale must therefore be coordinated with the assurance of correctly classifying the goods. A classification error could lead to unexpected duty and cancel the benefits of first sale.

From a relational point of view, as for the furniture, the pricing policies They are delicate. If the US distributor is not affiliated, finding out the real cost of production could push them to negotiate lower prices or change suppliers. But often in cosmetics, the distributor is the brand itself (e.g., a subsidiary) or has ironclad contracts. It must also be said that many large cosmetic companies already have their own optimized structures (e.g., free zones or customs warehouses) and may prefer other strategies (e.g.,. duty drawback on re-export, given the rate of returns or unsold items).

Ultimately, the First Sale in beauty is Feasible but niche. An ideal scenario is that of an Italian contract manufacturer that convinces the commissioning brand to apply it: both could benefit from it (the brand reduces import costs and perhaps increases order volumes to the contractor). From a regulatory standpoint, there are no obstacles if the general requirements are met. To date, specific public data on adoption in cosmetics is not available, but by analogy with similar sectors (pharmaceuticals have low duties and rarely use First Sale) modest usage is presumed. This does not preclude that an emerging Italian company, to enter the US market with aggressive pricing, could structure itself right away by using a “puppet” importer/distributor (meaning a controlled entity) to declare the first sale and save that little bit of duty and MPF, maximizing every resource.

Sector risks summarized: low duty – low reward (low duty, low benefit) and the need for very high FDA compliance. But the risk of specific customs penalties is minimal if everything is genuine. It should be noted that any inspection campaign on counterfeit or unsafe cosmetic products, CBP/FDA vigilance on these imports could increase; presenting first sale invoices with very low values could raise suspicions of under-invoicing aimed at introducing potentially counterfeit or non-compliant products. Therefore, reputable companies must dissociate themselves from illicit practices and, conversely, use First Sale transparency as proof of honesty (showing the actual manufacturing cost, without inflating it).

Operational Recommendations and Conclusions

The analysis conducted on the four sectors highlights that the First Sale Rule can represent a tangible competitive advantage for Italian exporting companies, provided they operate in strict compliance with the rules and with careful case-by-case evaluation. Below are some practical guidelines and the general recommendations for successfully implementing this strategy:

• Evaluate the suitability of your supply chain: First, a company should map its sales chain to the USA. Are there intermediaries or multiple sales before final importation? What are the duties applied to its products (by consulting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (USA)? If tariffs are high (e.g., over 5%) and there is at least one intermediate sale, it’s worth looking into further. Conversely, if you sell directly or the duties are zero, the First Sale doctrine may not offer any benefits. In borderline cases (low duties but high volumes), it may be useful to do a small quantitative feasibility study: calculate potential annual savings vs. implementation costs.
• Engaging partners and intermediaries: The success of the program requires the cooperation of all supply chain actors. It is advisable to initiate discussions with one's suppliers (or customers, if the Italian company is the “middleman”) to explain the mechanism and obtain willingness to share sensitive documents and information. Often, non-disclosure and transparency agreements can reassure the parties. In some cases, it may be appropriate to formalize cooperation by including contractual clauses that oblige the supplier to provide detailed invoices, copies of payments, and confirmation of the US export destination. If a partner firmly opposes revealing their prices, First Sale may not be feasible for that product line—or one may consider changing partners to a more collaborative one.
• Specialized customs consulting: given the regulatory complexity, it is highly recommended to involve a trade compliance expert or an international customs law firm. These consultants can conduct an initial audit (verifying requirements of bona fide sale e export), help structure transactions correctly, and prepare documentation according to CBP guidelines. Additionally, they can interface with the authorities in case of doubt. For example, they might request a binding ruling Ruling request to CBP to confirm that in a certain configuration the First Sale is accepted. Investing in consulting drastically reduces the risk of costly errors and penalties.
• Document and IT organization: the company must set up a system to track and archive all relevant documents. Ideally, implement a digital workflow where each First Sale shipment has the following associated: contract, first-tier invoice, second-tier invoice, proofs of payment, transport documents, certificates, etc. Everything must be kept for at least 5 years (period in which CBP can conduct post-clearance audits). Many companies integrate these needs into their ERP or trade compliance management systems. Some law firms offer secure web portals to upload documents (as mentioned by ST&R, an online platform for First Sale clients). This also helps to standardize the process, especially if you have many suppliers and products.
• Declaration and communication with CBP: make sure your customs broker The import department must correctly indicate the First Sale when completing the Entry Summary (electronic Form 7501). Since around 2018, CBP has required a specific field (“First Sale Declaration”) to be populated for these transactions. The lack of such a declaration can lead to problems (e.g., the company would lose the opportunity to later defend itself by claiming it was entitled to it, if it was not declared initially). Furthermore, it is prudent to prepare a information pack per CBP to be presented spontaneously or upon request during customs clearance, especially for the first First Sale shipments: include a cover letter explaining that you are utilizing the First Sale Rule for that importation, with a summary of the evidentiary documents attached. This can facilitate acceptance and prevent officials from having to investigate thoroughly.
• Alignment with industry regulations: as discussed, sectors such as food and cosmetics require synchronizing the First Sale with FDA/USDA requirements. Companies should draft sectoral checklists. For example, a food exporter will have a checklist: “FDA Prior Notice sent? FSVP ok? Health documents attached? Labels compliant? Ok, then the First Sale document package is complete.” A fashion company will check: “labels sewn with Made in X? Textile origin declarations obtained? Ok.” This integrated approach will prevent a customs aspect from undermining a regulatory aspect or vice versa.
• Internal training: Train the staff of the logistics, export, and administration divisions on the principles of the First Sale Rule. Everyone must understand why certain documents are requested from suppliers and how they should be handled. It is useful to prepare internal written procedures (SOPs) for implementation. Foreign partners can also benefit from training briefings—for example, explaining to the small artisanal supplier the importance of invoicing correctly and that this is not a tax audit on them, but an international customs requirement.
• Monitor and maintain compliance: Once the program has been launched, it is a good idea to monitor its progress. Keep a record of the savings achieved (to evaluate ROI), but also be ready to interactions with CBP: possible requests for further information or formal audits (Focused Assessment). In the event of an audit, promptly provide what is requested. Furthermore, stay updated on any regulatory changes: if tomorrow (a remote possibility but not to be excluded) Congress or the WTO were to push the US to abolish the First Sale rule (as was done in the EU starting in 2016), the company will have to adapt. Currently, CBP seems to maintain the option and in fact only monitors its use through the mandatory declaration – a sign that first sale is here to stay, but vigilance is required.

Sector comparison of benefits: a summary table of the average impact of the First Sale across the four sectors analyzed is provided, taking into account average duties and typical structures:

Sector	Typical US MFN tariffs	Example value (€/unit)	Duty without First Sale	Duty with First Sale	Estimated savings
Fashion	High (clothing 12-20%, footwear 8-30%+)	Men's cotton shirt: Manufacturer→Brand 8 €, Brand→USA 10 € (tariff 16%)	1,60 €	1,28 €	20% less (≃ €0.32)
Agri-food	Medium (food 5-10%, specific alcoholic beverages)	Pasta (egg-free): Manufacturer → Trader 0.90 €/kg, Trader → U.S. 1 €/kg (tariff 6.4%)	0.064 €/kg	0.0576 €/kg	10% less (≃ €0.0064/kg)
Furniture	Bass (wooden cabinets 0-1%, metal cabinets 0-4%)	Wooden chair: Manufacturer→Brand 50 €, Brand→USA 60 € (tariff 1%)	0,60 €	0,50 €	17% less (≃ €0.10)
Cosmetics	Very low/none (makeup 0%, perfumes 5%)	Perfume: Manufacturer→Brand €10, Brand→USA €20 (tariff 5%)	1,00 €	0,50 €	50% under (≃ €0.50)

(Legend: These are indicative and hypothetical values provided for illustrative purposes. The % savings refer to the duty, not the value of the goods.)

As you can see, fashion e cosmetics They may offer relatively high duty savings (because the markups are large), but the absolute effect depends on the duty rate: in the cosmetics sector, for example, reducing the duty on 50% may amount to only a few cents if the duty rate is 5%. In the food The percentage margin is modest because commercial markups tend to be lower and there is less value “spread”. In the mobile, the already minimal tariffs mean that any advantage is measured in fractions of a euro. These numbers serve to guide companies in their decisions: where it is not worth the effort (e.g., zero-tariff sectors), it is perhaps better to concentrate efforts elsewhere; where there is an opportunity instead (e.g., fashion), First Sale should enter the toolkit of every export manager.

Conclusion: The First Sale Rule proves to be a powerful tool, but one to be handled with care. Italian exports to the USA are a major driver (over €60 billion annually), and tariffs, while not prohibitively high on average, represent an additional cost on which companies can strategically intervene. Particularly in the fashion and luxury segments, where the Made in Italy suffers from the competition of low-cost productions burdened by the same tariffs, managing to optimize customs expenditure can help maintain the competitiveness of Italian products without affecting their premium positioning. Similarly, for quality agri-food products, every percentage point saved can be reinvested in promotion on the US market or in more aggressive pricing policies to gain shelf space.

Companies that have successfully adopted the First Sale highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approachinvolving legal, tax, and commercial departments as well as foreign partners in a joint customs optimization project. Often the greatest obstacle is psychological or organizational—“we've always done it this way”—but overcoming it can bring ongoing benefits over time. It should be remembered, in fact, that the advantage of the First Sale is not one-shot, but appellantonce the structure is set up, every future shipment will benefit from it, generating a cumulative savings stream.

Finally, a reminder to ethics compliancethe First Sale Rule, if applied correctly, is entirely legal and provided for by US regulations. It should not be confused with illicit under-invoicing practices. In an era of attention to supply chain transparency, using this rule can even demonstrate a company's willingness to operate clearly, providing CBP with full visibility into costs and actors involved. The important thing is not to abuse it and not to consider it a “trick” but a legitimate optimization granted by the system.

U.S. institutions have reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining the First Sale as an option—as demonstrated by the fact that in 2008, Congress enshrined its continued use despite opposition—but at the same time they demand strict adherence: any false statement or misuse will be severely penalized (as in the case of the 1.3 million fine mentioned in $)

Therefore, the final recommendation for Italian companies is: “If you are among those who can benefit from it, seize the opportunity of the First Sale Rule, but do so with preparation, accuracy, and transparency.”. In this way, you can reduce the landed costs of your products in the United States, strengthening your presence in that market and continuing to make the value of Made in Italy shine overseas.

Contact us for more information or to receive support in preparing the necessary documentation.

You can directly schedule a free preliminary appointment (by phone or via Zoom) 

CLICK HERE

OTHER CONTACT OPTIONS

---

MadeInItaly #ItalianExports #USMarket #ExportStrategy #CustomDuties #TradeCompliance #FirstSaleRule #InternationalTrade #SupplyChainOptimization #GlobalBusiness #ItalianBusiness #ExportConsulting #TradeLaw #MarketEntry #ImportExport #TariffReduction #BusinessExpansion #CrossBorderTrade # US Imports # Export Opportunities