Congressional intent is not "frustrated" when duty drawback claims on entries that aren't liquidated "and become final" within one year of the drawback claim being made aren't deemed liquidated, the U.S. said in a Nov. 22 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
Individual importer Timothy Brown filed a complaint on Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade seeking nearly $20,000 in duty drawback related to the shipment of a Porsch 911 Turbo S luxury vehicle. Brown said he in 2017 imported the vehicle, which was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8703.24.0190, dutiable at 2.5% (Timothy Brown v. United States, CIT # 20-03733).
A petitioner and an exporter responded Oct. 17 to the Commerce Department’s results on remand of a review of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (see 2409060031), which saw the department mostly maintain its earlier positions (see 2405080048) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Aug. 30 and Sept. 9 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):
Importer Performance Additives filed its opening brief on Sept. 9 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, claiming that the Court of International Trade erred in finding that various of the company's duty drawback claims weren't "deemed liquidated." The company argued that the trade court imposed conditions on the deemed liquidation rule of 19 U.S.C. Section 1504(a)(2)(A) that don't exist in the statute and imposed the rules of Section 1504(a)(2)(B) despite this law not applying to the company's entries at issue (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The Commerce Department stuck by its treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues on remand at the Court of International Trade in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. However, the agency modified Assan's duty drawback adjustment, resulting in a slight uptick in the respondent's AD rate, from 2.28% to 2.3% (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Tiaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dismissed a customs case from importer Dover Street Market NY for lack of prosecution. The court said that because the case wasn't removed from the customs case management calendar at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal," the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The importer brought the suit in August 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its duty drawback claims (Dover Street Market NY LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-00420).
An importer of airplane parts brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 31, saying that an aeronautical control box produced in Illinois and imported to Japan should have been classified as an American good, not a Japanese one (Aeronautical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00157).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 7-16 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 Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 31 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):