The Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 rejected importer Spirit Aerosystems' claim that the "preceding indented text" to any 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading should be read as part of the article description for purposes of claiming a substituted unused merchandise drawback. Spirit's had argued its 10-digit subheading begin with the superior text "For use in civil aircraft" as opposed to "other," avoiding a prohibition on unused merchandise drawback for HTS subheadings that begin with the word "other." But Judge Claire Kelly said the "plain meaning" of the drawback statute refers to the words adjacent to the 10-digit number and not the superior indented text, and that Congress meant to exclude article descriptions with the word "other" to eliminate the need for CBP to find on a case-by-case basis whether goods are sufficiently similar to be eligible for drawback.
An importer’s duty drawback claim was not automatically liquidated after one year because that importer failed to file the necessary paperwork, as the entries its drawback claim was made on had liquidated but not “become final,” the U.S. said Jan. 19 in response to comments on its motion for summary judgment (Performance Additives v. U.S., CIT # 22-00044).
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.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 27-29 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):
CBP found that two sets of documents didn't establish proof of exportation for drawback purposes, in a ruling it recently released. The agency said one of the documents provided by a customs broker failed to establish the identity of the exporter and both sets failed to prove the fact of exportation.
A Turkish aluminum foil exporter Dec. 22 sought expedited consideration of a request for a voluntary remand by the Commerce Department and challenged concerns raised by domestic petitioners in a case involving a duty drawback adjustment on its products (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).