CBP Rules That Sample Documents Don't Meet Requirements for Drawback
CBP found that two sets of documents didn't establish proof of exportation for drawback purposes, in a ruling it recently released. The agency said one of the documents provided by a customs broker failed to establish the identity of the exporter and both sets failed to prove the fact of exportation.
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.
Under 19 C.F.R. 190.72, proof of exportation data includes the date of the export, name of exporter, description of the goods, quality and unit of measure, the Schedule B or HTSUS number, and the country of "ultimate destination," CBP said. The agency also gives examples under the regulation with examples of documents that can prove exportation. Those documents include records issued by the exporting carrier, records from a CBP-approved electronic export system, official postal records, notice of lading for supplies on "certain vessels or aircraft," or a notice of transfer for articles transferred to a foreign-trade zone.
Customs broker Citta provided two sets of sample documents for CBP's examination, asking the agency to rule on whether they'd be sufficient proof of exportation for a drawback claim. The broker said the documents weren't part of any actual drawback claim pending before CBP. One set included a commercial invoice and a proof of delivery and tracking details provided by UPS. The other consisted of the commercial invoice and a letter from UPS that certified the relevant shipment was exported and identified the exportation date and consignees, as well as an "export report" from UPS that included a shipper reference number, the import country, the proof of delivery and a tracking number.
In the ruling, issued in November but more recently released to the public, CBP found that the first set of documents did not provide the fact of exportation of the article or the identity of the exporter, therefore not meeting the requirements for proof of exportation. The commercial invoice by itself was not enough to provide the fact of exportation of the article and the proof of delivery did not provide a "a description of the goods, quantity and unit of measure, and the HTSUS number," and therefore did not establish the fact of exportation. CBP also said that while the importer was identified in the commercial invoice, the proof of delivery doesn't corroborate the importer.
The second set of documents also failed to identify the fact of exportation. The documents don't contain "information related to the articles delivered" such as "a description of the goods, quantity and unit of measure, or the HTSUS number," CBP said. That information could help confirm that the shipment "contained the articles identified in the commercial invoice," the agency said. In addition, the export report doesn't refer to bills of lading and the bill of lading number identified on the commercial invoice issued is absent from the export report, CBP said.