The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Sept. 3. The most recent ruling is dated Aug. 12. The following headquarters rulings not involving carriers were "modified" on Sept. 3, according to CBP:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 26-30 in case they were missed.
A recent change to the customs regulations that limits the use of substitution drawback on excise taxes is supported by the plain language of the law, and merely closes a “double drawback” loophole that CBP San Francisco erroneously opened in 2004 when it misinterpreted that legal language as it was first enacted, Justice Department lawyers said in a brief filed Aug. 28 with the Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 19-25:
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
CBP issued the following release on commercial trade and related matters:
CBP would like to use the ongoing discussion around the 21st century customs framework (see 1903040023) as a way to review some of the most basic ways the agency looks at trade, said Thomas Overacker, CBP executive director, Cargo and Conveyance Security on June 28 while at the American Association of Exporters and Importers Annual Conference in Washington. Hypotheticals mentioned by CBP officials as discussion starters included a rewrite of the entry language in 19 CFR 141 and whether drawback remains a necessary program.
The National Association of Manufacturers filed a motion June 24 seeking court orders invalidating portions of CBP’s recent drawback regulations that bar substitution drawback on excise taxes. As in a complaint filed in April (see 1904180046), the trade association said the regulations issued by CBP following enactment of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2016 ignore lawmakers’ general intention to expand drawback, as well as specific instances where Congress has in the past preserved the ability to claim substitution drawback on excise taxes.