CBP Finds Vehicle Importer/Exporter Unable to Prove TIB Extension Request Prior to Expiration
CBP denied a request from MDT Armor Corp. that the company's temporary importation bond (TIB) be extended after it exported a vehicle beyond the TIB expiration date. CBP said in the April 9 ruling that it found MDT's explanations to be lacking. Panmet Group, an agent working on behalf of MDT, told CBP that it did submit a timely TIB extension request and "was under the impression that the request had been processed." CBP's ruling only applies to the TIB extension request and not liquidated damages, the agency said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
MDT imported 10 Land Rovers under a 2014 TIB that expired Oct. 7, 2015, and "MDT failed to export or destroy one of the vehicles prior" to that date, CBP said. The company reported to CBP in 2016 that all 10 vehicles had been exported, and one was "exported on November 14, 2015." After MDT received a Notice of Penalty or Liquidated Damages Incurred and Demand for Payment from the Port of Atlanta, Panmet submitted a request for extension to the Atlanta Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures Officer and said MDT believed the extension had already been processed.
Panmet told CBP it previously filed a TIB extension request. "However, when the Port requested a copy of this request, Panmet explained that a copy was not made of the original submission," the agency said. "Instead, Panmet submitted email correspondences between MDT and Panmet, dated October 5, 2015, and Panmet and its broker, Atlanta’s Customs Broker, dated October 9, 2015, requesting the status of the new close date after its extension." The company also provided a November 2015 email to CBP "requesting an update on the new close date after the extension" of the TIB.
The TIB regulations allow for CBP Headquarters to consider untimely requests for TIB extensions. "Generally, extensions based upon untimely requests are granted only sparingly for extraordinary reasons, such as the death or serious illness of the employee responsible for making the request for extension," the agency said. Despite Panmet's assertions, "there is no record of an Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation, CBP Form 3173, having been received by the Port," CBP said.
There's not enough evidence to support the extension, CBP said. While there's no evidence of other violations of the bond and MDT doesn't have a history of issues, "the vehicle covered by the entry did remain in the country and there is evidence of a lack of due diligence exercised by MDT, without a reasonable explanation of why the application was not timely filed," CBP ruled. MDT's "reliance on a different entity to ensure compliance demonstrates a lack of due diligence."
The email submissions reflect that insufficient due diligence. "Approximately a month after the TIB’s expiration, on November 2, 2015, Panmet e-mailed CBP to determine the status of the TIB close date," CBP said. "However, no other correspondences or documentation were provided. The responses to these e-mails were not provided, and it does not appear that MDT inquired further to confirm that the purported request was actually filed and received. Rather, it was not until MDT received the Notice of Penalty or Liquidated Damages Incurred & Demand for Payment that it provided a letter request for an extension."