The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 11-13 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Drawback
A duty drawback is a refund by CBP of the duties, taxes, or fees paid on imported goods, which were imposed upon importation as prescribed in 19 U.S.C. 1313(d). More broadly, a drawback also includes the refund or remission of other excise taxes pursuant to other provisions of law.
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order ordered parties in a suit on the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey to respond to the government's request for a partial remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment for respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret. The U.S. said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments (see 2311270064) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
The U.S. on Nov. 27 filed a partial motion to remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment in exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's case concerning the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. The government said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments. Assan consented to the request, while the petitioners, led by the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, said it takes no position on the motion without having looked at a copy of the motion (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a second notice of supplemental authorities in its AD case at the Court of International Trade to point to a separate AD review involving a duty drawback adjustment and Commerce's requirement that only closed inward processing certificates be included in the numerator of Commerce's per unit calculation (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00616).
Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi added supplemental authorities to its case regarding the antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from Turkey, it said in its Oct. 30 notice at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Importer Spirit Aerosystems' reading of the statute pertaining to its drawback claim for unused substitution drawback would lead to "unpredictable and often absurd results," the U.S. said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Spirit's argument that CBP's implementation of the statute "misconstrues basic tariff terms, renders entire sections" of the law "inoperative, and requires the omission of certain words from the drawback statute," the government claimed (Spirit Aerosystems v. United States, CIT # 20-00094).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Sept. 21 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Two claims of substitution drawback for imports of petroleum derivatives already had been deemed liquidated when CBP later "attempted" liquidation,importer Performance Additives, LLC said in an Aug. 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Performance Additives is seeking repayment of over $1.4 million in Section 301 duties it argues were improperly levied (Performance Additives v. U.S., CIT # 22-00044).
Plywood imported from Uruguay that is subjected to pressure treatment is ineligible for unused merchandise drawback, CBP headquarters said in an Aug. 21 ruling. The ruling followed a 2021 ruling request by International Forest Products (IFP) as to whether certain activities counted as “manufacturing” or “use” of such products under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1) and 19 CFR § 190.31(c).