CBP is nearly ready to release a new process for accelerated payments of drawback claims while reviews of limited modifications of manufacturing drawback are ongoing, Comstock & Theakston said in a blog post. "CBP can confirm that a process is being developed to address limited modifications and will be issued soon," an agency spokeswoman said. This process "will be important for filers who have significant refund amounts waiting to be distributed," Comstock said.
The Court of International Trade upheld on June 17 the denial by CBP of more than $276,275.12 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The trade court found that, under CBP’s now-defunct 1993 drawback regulations, the date of filing is when a complete paper claim has been submitted, not when the electronic summary is transmitted. It also held CBP guidance documents did not give the wrong impression that no paper documentation was necessary for drawback claims.
CBP is seeking comments by July 15 on an existing information collection for protests of CBP decisions, it said in a notice. CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the information collected or to the estimated burden hours associated with the collection.
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 13-19:
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 15-21:
The National Association of Manufacturers lawsuit against CBP and the Department of the Treasury over limits to drawback for goods subject to excise taxes seems to have a "good likelihood of success," law firm Neville Peterson said in an April 19 blog post. Specifically, NAM has a good argument that CBP's change for excise tax drawback "conflicts directly with the language of Section 313 of the Tariff Act, as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA)," the law firm said. "On this point, NAM would seem to have a clear path to victory." That's because "Treasury’s proposal to limit [federal excise taxes (FET)] was first proposed as a change of practice in 2007, when the prior version of the drawback statute was in effect, and withdrawn in 2009," Neville Peterson said. "As amended by TFTEA, however, the drawback statute clearly forecloses the government’s position, since it indicates that the amount of FET drawback to be paid is that which 'would have been charged had the exported merchandise been imported.'”
CBP's rule that ended the use of some drawback for goods subject to excise tax was unsupported by the economic analysis and the intent of Congress, the National Association of Manufacturers said in its legal challenge to the drawback changes. NAM, represented by Sidley Austin and Hogan Lovells, told the Court of International Trade that the rules should be vacated and "permanently enjoin the enforcement of the Rule to the extent that it purports to limit drawback granted on the export or destruction of substituted merchandise to the amount of taxes paid," it said. A legal challenge to the rules was widely anticipated (see 1812190011).
The National Association of Manufacturers filed a lawsuit with the Court of International Trade over new regulations that prevent drawback for goods subject to excise taxes. Among other arguments in the April 17 filing, the association said the drawback changes related to excise taxes, which were implemented as part of a general overhaul of drawback under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, go against the expressed aim of lawmakers. The court should vacate the rule's excise tax drawback provisions, said NAM.