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.
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 Jan. 7 letter to litigants in an antidumping duty case, asked the parties to consult on whether oral argument should be held on issues not currently part of ongoing appeals of key Section 232 questions. The case, brought by respondent and Turkish steel company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi, concerns the Commerce Department's refusal to grant a full duty drawback adjustment and a deduction of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the company's U.S. price (see 2112300044) (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00140). While the Section 232 issue is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097, Judge Jane Restani asked the parties to figure out if litigation can continue without the Section 232 question involved. Restani also pointed to the current petition to the Supreme Court over the validity of some Section 232 tariffs in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S.
BMW North America is unable to claim substitution unused merchandise drawback on motor vehicles owned and exported by BMW Manufacturing Co., CBP said in a recently released ruling dated Nov. 30. BMW NA planned to "substitute the exported motor vehicles owned by BMW MC for motor vehicles imported and duty paid by BMW NA" and asked for CBP input on whether that is allowed.
The Commerce Department erred when it weight-averaged reported raw material premium costs (DIRMATMP) for all control numbers (CONNUMs) because that distorts their costs, antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi said in a Jan. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent further argued against Commerce's decisions to deduct the amount of Section 232 duties paid from its U.S. price, limit Assan's full duty drawback adjustment and treat certain management fees as indirect selling expenses (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00616).
The Commerce Department properly denied antidumping duty respondent Icdas a duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that the respondent gave no evidence that its Inward Processing Certificates (i.e., requests to gain the drawback) were closed, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 30 brief. DOJ argued that the denial doesn't cut against past practice, and even if it did, would be a reasonable position to hold (Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00306).
The Commerce Department was wrong to deny antidumping duty review respondent Noksel's claimed duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that its inward processing certificate (IPC) wasn't closed, plaintiff Noksel Celik Borun Sanayi told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 brief. Noksel argued that it properly demonstrated that it qualifies for the full duty drawback adjustment since all imports and exports under the IPC have been completed and it is no longer permitted by the Turkish government to add import or export information (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00140).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 23 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):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Commerce improperly applied a duty drawback adjustment to a Turkish aluminum exporter’s antidumping duty rate, because the imports the exporter used to claim drawback could not be used to make the exported merchandise, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group said in a brief filed Nov. 23 in support of its motion for judgment in the case (Assan Aluminiyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).
Three Court of International Trade cases filed by Janssen Ortho should be assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves and stayed, Janssen argued in an Oct. 27 brief at CIT now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its opinion in the appeal. In April, the Federal Circuit upheld Choe-Groves' decision that the active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen in one of its HIV medications was eligible for duty-free treatment (see 2104260034). The API was darunavir ethanolate (Janseen Ortho LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00052, #14-00094, #14-00198).