Damaged Printer Component Not Eligible for Drawback, Says CBP

The broken piece of a screen printing machine is ineligible for drawback due to a lack of information on the duty paid related to the specific part, said CBP in a Oct. 9 ruling (here). While the importer, CCL Tube, subsequently provided more information on the imported components, "CBP is not required to undertake additional appraisement procedures in order to ascertain the value or duty paid on component parts," said the agency in HQ H259469. CBP's ruling was in response to a further review of protest request from CCL.

The company imported a screen printing machine for plastic tubes in 2009 that was found to be damaged upon arrival, said CBP. The sea waybill for the entry lists the screen printing machine, a switchboard, and accessories, "but provides no value," said CBP. When CCL reimported the machine with the new part, the company filed a drawback claim for "the apportioned duty paid relating to the" damaged "component part of the screen printing machine" previously entered, said CBP. The importer filed for further review of the protest after the CBP San Francisco Drawback Office rejected the claim.

The drawback statute allows for duty refunds on imports of defective products, said CBP. "If CCL can demonstrate the duties paid on the merchandise that was defective as of the time of importation, then it may be able to claim drawback," it said. But, when considering drawback, CBP "only must consider the documentation submitted at the time of entry," the agency said. CCL didn't include a breakdown of the duty paid or value of the screen printing machine broken down by the components on which it claimed drawback, said CBP. While CCL claimed that CBP can figure out the actual value printer part through documents that weren't included in the original entry, use of those documents would amount to "additional appraisement procedures" and therefore "have no impact" on the drawback claim, said CBP.

CBP also shot down CCL's request for a refund of "excessive duties and fees paid." The regulations the company relied on don't extend to drawback, said CBP. Also, CCL's request for the refunds liquidation of the entry weren't raised "until October 15, 2014, when it protested the denial of its drawback claim, well after the liquidation became final for this entry, said CBP. "Further, this goes beyond the scope of this protest, which only concerns the liquidation of the drawback claim and not the liquidation of the underlying entry to that claim."