"The 2004 Ford Drawback," Worst Vehicle Name Ever

Ford Motor Company had 17 drawback claims that it believes liquidated by operation of law and, as a result, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection should pay to it. Customs, as you might imagine, disagreed. That is why the U.S. Court of International Trade had to decide Ford Motor Company v. U.S.

The nub of the issue is 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(C), which states:

An entry or claim for drawback filed before December 3, 2004, the liquidation of which is not final as of December 3, 2004, shall be deemed liquidated on the date that is 1 year after December 3, 2004 [i.e., on December 3, 2005], at the drawback amount asserted by the claimant at the time of the [drawback] entry or claim.

 Ford's claims were filed prior to December 3, 2004 and not liquidated by December 3, 2005. As a result, Ford believes it is entitled to the drawback claim in full. Customs, on the other hand, believes that because the drawback claims involved underlying entries that had not yet liquidated, the claims were not ripe and 1504(a)(2)(C) did not apply.

Rather, according to Customs, the controlling law is paragraph (B) of the same section, which states:

An entry or claim for drawback whose designated or identified [i.e., underlying] import entries have not been liquidated and become final within the 1-year period described in subparagraph (A), or within the 1-year period described in subparagraph (C), shall be deemed liquidated upon the deposit of estimated duties on the unliquidated imported merchandise, and upon the filing with the Customs Service of a written request for the liquidation of the drawback entry or claim. Such a request must include a waiver of any right to payment or refund under other provisions of law. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe any necessary regulations for the purpose of administering this subparagraph.

According to Customs, the Ford claims could not be paid unless the entries were liquidated or Ford paid the estimated duties and filed a written request coupled with a waiver of any other refund. Ford did not do that.

Note that both (B) and (C) are exceptions to the rule of (A). The basic rule is that a drawback claim will liquidate as made by the claimant if it is not liquidated within one year of the date of the claim.

The Court disagreed with Customs and the Government. The way the Court reads the statute paragraphs (B) and (C) perform separate and independent duties. Paragraph (A) sets the general rule of one-year deemed liquidation. Paragraph (B) allows a claimant to force the liquidation of the drawback claim even though Customs has not yet liquidated the underlying entries. This is akin to the accelerated disposition of a protest. It forces CBP to act and the claimant can then decide what to do with the result. Paragraph (C) is the clean up provision that deals only with drawback claims pending on December 3, 2004. Paragraph (C) basically tells CBP to act on those claims within a year or they will be deemed liquidated as claimed.

To make a very long story short, that is how Ford won this case. The claims it filed prior to December 3, 2004 were deemed liquidated on December 3, 2005 even if underlying entries remained unliquidated. Paragraph (C), according to the Court of International Trade, is clear and unambiguous in its meaning. Nothing in the legislative history appears to be contrary to that conclusion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more