Tobacco Importer Says It Made Prima Facie Case for Substitution Drawback
In a Jan. 5 reply, importer Scottsdale Tobacco disagreed that it hadn’t offered the necessary documentation to support a substitution of unused merchandise drawback for certain 2018 and 2019 entries -- it had done so in its motion for judgment, which was all it needed to do for an issue the Court of International Trade hears de novo, it said (Scottsdale Tobacco v. United States, CIT # 24-00022).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Scottsdale brought its case to the trade court after its drawback request was denied in 2022 (see 2508250048). Citing the absence of complete Customs Form 214 Notices of Admission to the foreign-trade zones and the apparent contradictions in the importer’s request, the U.S. in turn said the Scottsdale case was missing evidence that it had received entered cigarettes into its inventory and then withdrawn them for export later (see 2512010057).
The importer said Jan. 6 that the government’s cross-motion had misunderstood the standard of review in this case. The trade court decides drawback cases de novo, it said. But the U.S. motion, it said, “completely ignores the prima facie case Scottsdale has presented for the drawback claim on the de novo record before the Court” and dismisses evidence supporting Scottsdale’s claim.
For example, the importer had added 23 import consumption documents to its motion for judgment that identified the relevant entry dates, Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifications and quantities of the product entered by Scottsdale for substitution.
It also appended four CF 214s to its motion, it said, with which “the government has raised no material issue of fact.”
Its evidence was enough for Scottsdale to make its prima facie case, it said, shifting the burden of proof to the government to rebut the importer’s claim.
“Instead of presenting its own case in chief to the Court in this litigation, the defendant has argued that it could not ‘verify’ plaintiff's drawback claim, suggesting that this is somehow an evidentiary flaw that should result in a judgment for the defendant,” it said. “This misapprehends the de novo standard of review applicable to this case.”