DRA 1
OT:RR:CTF:ER
H275551 TP
Port Director
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
5600 Pearl Street
Rosemont, IL 60018
Attention: Richard Brow, Chief, Drawback
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest; Drawback; 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1); Code Sheet
Dear Port Director:
The following is our decision regarding the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) filed by Argents Express Group (Argents) on August 26, 2014, contesting CBP’s decision to reject the drawback entry filed because it was incomplete, and requesting an opportunity to perfect the drawback claim.
FACTS:
The subject merchandise was entered on November 11, 2010, and was exported on February 27, 2011. On February 25, 2014, Argents submitted a CBP Form 7551, regarding a claim for drawback under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1). On February 28, 2014, the port sent a rejection letter to Argents, stating that the paperwork submitted was incomplete. The rejection letter stated, inter alia, that the drawback code sheet, as required by 19 C.F.R. § 191.51(a)(1) for manual claims, was not included in Argents’ documentation.
Argents filed a protest on August 26, 2014. As part of the protest, Argents submitted a drawback code sheet. In its protest, Argents stated that a coding sheet was included with the documentation submitted on February 25, 2014. As support, an affidavit from the individual responsible for organizing the documents was included. In the affidavit, the individual states that it is her belief that the drawback coding sheet was submitted to CBP with the February 25, 2014, drawback documentation based, among other things, on Argents’ good record and the fact that the individual was unaware of prior instances where CBP had rejected one of Argents’ claims for drawback based on the lack of a drawback coding sheet. Moreover, Argents, in its protest, states that CBP should permit Argents to perfect the drawback claim as allowed under 19 C.F.R. § 191.52(b).
ISSUE:
Whether sufficient proof has been submitted to grant drawback.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
As an initial matter, we note that Argents timely filed its protest within 180 days from the date of liquidation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A). CBP liquidated Protestant’s entries on February 28, 2014, and the protest was received on August 26, 2014. We note initially that the refusal by CBP to pay a claim for drawback is a protestable decision pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(6).
In general, complete claims for drawback are provided for at 19 C.F.R. § 191.51(a)(1), which reads as follows:
Unless otherwise specified, a complete drawback claim under this part shall consist of the drawback entry on Customs Form 7551, applicable certificate(s) of manufacture and delivery, applicable Notice(s) of Intent to Export, Destroy, or Return Merchandise for Purposes of Drawback, applicable import entry number(s), coding sheet unless the data is filed electronically, and evidence of exportation or destruction under subpart G of this part.
(Emphasis added). Therefore, paperwork submitted manually that does not contain a coding sheet is an incomplete claim for drawback. Incomplete claims for drawback are provided for at 19 C.F.R. § 191.52(a), which reads as follows:
Upon review of a drawback claim, if the claim is determined to be incomplete (see § 191.51(a)(1)), the claim will be rejected and Customs will notify the filer in writing. The filer shall then have the opportunity to complete the claim subject to the requirement for filing a complete claim within 3 years.
Therefore, if the paperwork submitted to the drawback office is an incomplete claim, the filer has the opportunity to complete the claim within three years.
As consistently held by the courts, drawback is a statutory privilege expressly conditioned upon full compliance with customs rules and regulations. See, e.g., United States v. Lockheed Petroleum Services, Ltd., 709 F.2d 1472, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Swan & Finch Company v. United States, 190 U.S. 143 (1903). As discussed above, to obtain drawback, a claimant must be in full compliance with the relevant requirements regarding drawback, including the requirement that a claimant submit a complete claim within three years of the date of export.
In this case, the date of export was February 27, 2011. The drawback claim submitted manually by Argents on February 25, 2014, was reviewed by the port and, as stated in the rejection letter of February 28, 2014, the required coding sheet was not included. Argents claims, in its affidavit, that they did file a complete claim which included a coding sheet with the drawback claim. CBP has held that internally-generated or self-serving documents, by themselves, do not constitute sufficient proof. See Customs Letter Ruling 110788, March 28, 1990 (holding that a statement as to the nature of the work signed by an employee of the petitioner arguing that the installation of heating coils was a non-dutiable change was insufficient); HQ 057909, March 2, 2010 (holding that two affidavits indicating that the work done was non-dutiable was insufficient, absent third-party corroborating evidence); HQ 110717, June 28, 1990 (holding that a self-serving statement as to the nature of the work completed and signed by an employee of the petitioner was insufficient without any additional evidence); and HQ 110744, June 21, 1990 (holding that an affidavit provided by an employee of the petitioner was unpersuasive without corroborating documentation from an independent source). Therefore, the affidavit included in the protest stating that the undersigned believed the coding sheet was included with the February 25, 2014 claim, is noted, but is not sufficient. As such, Argents submitted an incomplete claim on February 25, 2014, and did not submit a complete claim within the three years from the date of export. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 191.51(a)(1), 191.52(a).
Argents also states that CBP did not contact Argents concerning the alleged deficiencies; therefore, when Argents received CBP’s rejection letter on February 28, 2014, the three year period to file revised or additional information had already expired. As noted, on February 28, 2014, CBP did notify Argents of its incomplete claim deficiencies in writing, as is required under 19 C.F.R. § 191.52(a). Argents asserts that CBP should permit the claim to be perfected under 19 C.F.R. § 191.52(b), which permits additional information to be furnished within 30 days from the date of notification by CBP. However, perfecting a claim under 19 C.F.R. § 191.52(b) is only available if the claim was complete according to 19 C.F.R. § 191.51(a), and as we stated above CBP determined that Argents’ drawback claim was incomplete. Moreover, Argents did not submit the coding sheet to CBP until August 26, 2014 which was more than 30 days after February 28, 2014. Therefore, Argents was not in full compliance with the customs rules and regulations regarding drawback, and as such Argents is not entitled to drawback and the drawback claim should be denied.
HOLDING:
Argents did not submit a complete claim within three years pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 191.51(a). The Protest should be DENIED IN FULL for the reasons set forth above.
In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and 26), you are to mail this decision, together with the CBP Form 19, to the Protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division