CIT and CAFC Decisions on Drawback
In George E. Warren Corporation v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld an earlier Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling that denied the plaintiff's claim for drawback on Harbor Maintenance Taxes (HMTs) and Environmental Taxes (ETs).
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.
CAFC Upholds Denial of Drawback for HMTs and Environmental Taxes
This case stems out of Warren's protest of a Customs' decision to refuse to grant drawback of the HMT and ET paid in connection with Warren's importation of certain petroleum products in 1995 and 1996, that were exported in 1996.
The CAFC agreed with the CIT that the decision in Texport v. U.S. -that the HMT is ineligible for drawback under 19 USC 1313(j)(2) as it does not have the requisite nexus with importation - is controlling in this instance. The CAFC also agreed with the CIT that the ET is imposed in a nondiscriminatory manner on both imported and domestic petroleum products and also lacks the necessary nexus to importation to qualify for drawback under 19 USC 1313(j)(2).
(See ITT's Online Archives or 08/05/02 news, 02080520, for BP summary of the CIT's ruling.) (CAFC Decision 02-1467, decided 08/28/03, available at http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1467.html)
CIT Rules Against Customs' Denial of Drawback Claims for Asparagus
In The Pillsbury Company v. U.S., the CIT ruled that Pillsbury is entitled to a portion of the drawback it claimed for certain asparagus and that Customs erred in denying Pillsbury's claims for such drawback.
The CIT states that Pillsbury filed this action to challenge Customs' denial of its substitution unused merchandise drawback claims made pursuant to 19 USC 1313(j)(2) with respect to asparagus imported from Mexico and asparagus grown in Washington State and exported to Canada. The CIT states that such drawback claims are for exports of goods that are "commercially interchangeable" with the imported goods.
Based on its examination of government and industry standards, tariff classification, relative values, invoice descriptions, preparation and packing of asparagus, and all other testimony and admitted exhibits, the CIT concludes that the designated and substitute asparagus are commercially interchangeable. However, because the portion of the asparagus spears that is over 6.5 inches is waste, Pillsbury is eligible to claim drawback only for 6.5 inches of each asparagus spear.
(Slip Op. 03-140, dated 10/27/03, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op03/Slip-Op%2003-140.pdf)