Retroactive GSP Can Be Claimed on Letter Correcting Earlier Misclassification, CBP Says
An importer may retroactively claim Generalized System of Preferences benefits on entries it originally misclassified in a subheading not eligible for GSP, and may do so in a latter responding to the CBP notice of action pointing out that misclassification, CBP said in a recent ruling. At agency headquarters on a request for further review, CBP directed its Port of Houston in HQ H291254 to grant Seatex’s protest and allow the importer GSP benefits for entries during the 2013-15 GSP lapse.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Seatex had in 2015 classified 16 entries of the chemical hexamine from India in subheading 2933.99.89, a duty-free subheading that covers hexamethyleneimine. CBP sent the importer a notice of action in December that year, notifying the company that, based on lab results, one of the entries was actually classifiable as hexamine in subheading 2933.69.50, a provision dutiable at 6.3% but eligible for GSP. It requested that Seatex review its records for the past five years to find any entries with similar errors.
In the meantime, GSP had been renewed by Congress in July 2015, with CBP giving importers until Dec. 28, 2015, to claim GSP retroactively on goods entered during the lapse in the program that had begun in July 2013 (see 1507200020). Seatex replied on Dec. 21, before the GSP deadline, correcting 16 entries with the same classification issue and also claiming GSP on the corrected entries. It did so by way of a letter with attached entry summaries.
CBP Houston denied the claims. “Based on the fact a classification change was proposed, the GSP claim in a letter format and not a Post-entry amendment is not sufficient to substantiate the GSP claim,” the port said. “It is unclear whether a retroactive GSP claim is allowed on originally misclassified articles where GSP was not an option,” it said in the denial.
But according to the ruling from CBP headquarters, “a duty refund may be requested through a variety of written mediums.” A December 2015 CSMS message told importers that they could submit duty refund requests on entries not flagged for GSP during the lapse in the form of letters, as well as by way of post entry amendments, post summary corrections, protests or “using other written medium” that conveyed certain details about the relevant entry (see 1512010034).
“Prior to December 28, 2015, the deadline for requesting GSP treatment for imports entered during the lapse period, Seatex filed a response requesting GSP treatment for the imported Hexamine,” CBP said in the ruling. “CBP has not designated any particular form or format as the proper method to request a duty refund, only that certain information be included in the request and that the request be in a written medium. Thus, we find the letter Seatex used in its Response to the Notice of Action with the corrected entry summaries was sufficient to substantiate a retroactive GSP claim,” the agency said.