Trade case plaintiffs mark drawback provisions

A supplement to a court filing calling for an interim final rule specifies the drawback processing language the eight plaintiffs want finalized.    The eight plaintiffs in the case Tabacos de Wilson v. United States in a filing with the Court of International Trade (CIT) on Friday specified which parts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s proposed rule for modernized drawback it would like to see released as an interim final rule, namely, provisions that would allow for calculation of drawback.
   On July 27, the plaintiffs of the March 23-filed case requested CIT order the U.S. government to publish an interim final rule for drawback regulations under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA), including a mechanism for drawback refunds, by the end of Aug. 26.
   CBP published a proposed rule for TFTEA drawback on July 27, after CIT in a June 29 ruling said it would consider imposing its own deadline for issuance of TFTEA drawback regulations if CBP couldn’t issue a proposed regulation for notice and comment “on or about” July 5.  
   The 444-page, long-awaited proposed rule sets forth simplified procedures, including the new ability to use eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings or Export Schedule B numbers, to claim TFTEA substitution drawback. TFTEA set forth a number of modernized procedures for the claiming and processing of drawback, including electronic filing. As a U.S. government program, drawback has been in place since 1789.
   Specifically, the plaintiffs requested that CIT release as part of an IFR provisions in the proposed rule for per unit averaging and relative values (part of Section 190.2 of the proposed rule), which shed light on the calculation of drawbacks, as well as provisions defining the value of substituted export merchandise (Section 190.11) and calculating allowable refunds (Section 190.22 and 190.32(a)-(d)) for substituted unused merchandise claims.
   The plaintiffs also requested the IFR publication of Section 190.51, which addresses the completion of drawback claims generally, including the methodology for calculating and claiming drawback, as well as line item apportionments and calculating refunds of merchandise processing fees included in drawback claims.
   “Plaintiff believes that the enactment of these regulations as interim final rules will carry up the requirement of Section 906(g) of TFTEA,” states the filing, referring to the section of the law that requires regulations for calculation of duty drawback. “Moreover, as detailed in prior submissions to this court, the revenue is protected by virtue of the significant bonding obligations imposed on drawback claimants.”