BON-1-04 CO:R:C:E 223541 C
District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
Houston, TX
RE: Untimely request for extension of TIB - Case Nos. 91 5301
20724 and 91 5301 20727; temporary importation under bond
Dear Sir:
This responds to your memorandum of November 1, 1991,
concerning the above subject (ENF-4-G LW). In accordance with
section 10.37 of the Customs Regulations, you forwarded the
company's untimely request for extension of the TIB period to
this office.
The merchandise in question was admitted under Subchapter
XIII, Chapter 98, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States. (See particularly U.S. Note 1(a) of the subchapter.)
Such merchandise may be admitted into the United States, under
bond, for a temporary period of one year without the payment of
duty. Extensions of the one year period may be obtained, in
appropriate circumstances, such that the entire period authorized
will not exceed three years. 19 C.F.R. 10.37. Upon expiration
of the period, original or extended, the merchandise must be
exported or destroyed.
An application for extension must be filed within one year
of the date of importation. Failure to file a timely application
will result in denial of the application. In only unusual
circumstances will untimely filed applications be approved.
Unimely applications will be approved when the following
conditions are met: the merchandise covered by a TIB entry
remains in the United States; there is no evidence indicating use
of the merchandise contrary to the terms of the bond; the
applicant is not a chronic violator; there is no lack of due
diligence in compliance with the law and regulations; and there
is a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a timely
application.
Customs, in applying the above criteria, has approved
untimely filed applications for extension only rarely. Usually,
the issue is whether or not there has been a lack of due
diligence by the importer. A lack of due diligence would lead to
the conclusion that there is not a reasonable explanation for the
failure to file in a timely manner. On the information submitted
by the company submitting the request, there appears no
reasonable explanation for failing to file a timely application
for extension. In both cases, the entries had been extended once
already. This clearly indicates that the company is aware of the
regulation and able to comply. However, with respect to the
instant request for extension, there is no evidence that the
company was diligent in complying with the requirement.
The company clearly breached its bond contract. There is a
complete lack of evidence upon which to grant the extraordinary
relief applied for. We would consider such evidence if provided
by the importer. Otherwise, we are unable to approve the request
for extension. If, in your discretion, you are convinced that
there is evidence to show eligibility for the extension, please
resubmit the request with such evidence. Be advised that
extraordinary circumstances are required. In the past, these
have included the death of the person responsible for filing
extension applications, complete destruction of records - such as
where a building burned down, and the unforeseen emergency
cancellation of a space launch.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division