H303131

H303131 September 17, 2024 OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H303131 RD Category: Entry JoAnne Colonnello Center Director Pharmaceuticals, Health and Chemicals Center for Excellence and Expertise Buffalo Field Office Buffalo, NY 14225 Attn: Melissa Garland, Customs Liquidator Re: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 5301-18-100548; Iwatani Corporation of America; 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1); Direct Identification Unused Drawback Dear Director Colonnello: Protest No. 5301-18-100548 was forwarded to this office for further review and was received on October 15, 2018. We have considered the points raised by your office and the protestant. Our decision follows. FACTS: In October 2016, RCS Companies (“RCS”) imported a “bending roll machine” that was sold to Iwatani Corporation of America (“Iwatani”) to be displayed at a trade show in Las Vegas, NV. An invoice marked EBG72-00468, dated September 21, 2016, from Iwatani reflects that a “bending roll” “of no commercial value” was to be delivered to the Las Vegas Convention Center (“LVCC”). The same invoice notes the “Model” to be PRB-MJ25TNC-0615. A packing list of the same date and reference number as the invoice, indicates that a “bending roll” in a crate was to be delivered to the LVCC. A document labeled “combined commercial invoice / packing list,” dated September 26, 2016, shows the shipper and exhibitor as Iwatani and the importer of record as RCS Companies. The goods described include a “bending roll Model PRB-MJ25TNC-0615,” manufactured in Japan. Iwatani is named as the “exhibitor” and the venue is the LVCC. Iwatani states in its protest, that “[a]fter the trade show, the machine was moved to a warehouse in Las Vegas to await a sale to a U.S. customer.” By February 2018, no sale had materialized, so Iwatani decided to export the machine back to Japan. On March 5, 2018, Iwatani filed a “Notice of Intent to Export, Destroy or Return Merchandise for Purposes of Drawback,” also called a United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) form 7553. On the CBP Form 7553, the merchandise is described as “Bending Roll, Model: PRB- MJ25TNC0615” in one crate. In the box for Unique Indentifer No., Iwatini listed “[t]o be determined.” CBP waived examination on March 5, 2018. Iwatani provided a bill of lading from Great Luck Inc., dated March 16, 2018, that shows Iwatani Corporation of America as the shipper/exporter of “1 Wooden Packing of (Vacumed [sic]) of Bending Roll Machine,” “Model: PRB-MJ25TNC-0615.” The port of origin is Los Angeles, California, and the port of discharge is Kobe, Japan. Iwatani has also provided an invoice, dated February 27, 2018, that reflects Iwatani Corporation in Japan as the buyer and Iwatani Corporation of America as the seller of “bending rol [sic] machine. The invoice also shows that the bending roll machine, model PRB-MJ25TNC-0615, of “no commercial value,” but with a noted unit price in Japanese yen, was to be shipped from California to Japan. According to Iwatani, the machine was exported to Japan on March 16, 2018. On March 19, 2018, Iwatani filed a duty drawback claim under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1), direct identification unused merchandise. According to Iwatani, the machine was not used after importation from, and export back to, Japan. Because Iwatani was a first-time filer for drawback, the drawback office conducted a “full desk audit” of the drawback entry and sent a Request for Information to Iwatani’s broker on May 7, 2018. This request stated: “In order to give full consideration to your claim for drawback, it is necessary to verify the provision of drawback, selected exports, and your right to drawback.” In response to this request Iwatani provided the following: • An invoice dated December 20, 2016, showing that a company named Freeman billed Iwatani Corp for an “international transportation import” to the Las Vegas Convention Center. The document does not list any description of the merchandise. • A document labeled “Receipt of Cargo” dated November 22, 2016, showing that a bending roll machine, “model: PRBMJ25TNC-0615” was received from Iwatani into a warehouse in Las Vegas, NV. • A document labeled “Pick Ticket for Outbound Shipment” dated March 1, 2018, indicating that a large crate was picked up from a Las Vegas warehouse. • A “Straight Bill of Lading” dated March 1, 2018, showing that a carrier named HT Express Inc. transported “Crate stc: Machinery” for Iwatani to “TMI c/o Westcoast Packers” in Long Beach, CA. The dimensions for the machinery were 2 listed to be 130 inches long, 86 inches wide, and 91 inches high. The weight was listed to be 7,011 pounds. • A “Straight Bill of Lading” from West Coast Packer and Port Services dated March 9, 2018, showing that a carrier named Dolse Trucking transported a crate. The dimensions for the crate were listed to be 130 inches long, 88 inches wide, and 92 inches high. The weight was listed to be 6,910 pounds. • A “Delivery Certificate for Purposes of Drawback,” signed on May, 18, 2018, showing the transfer of a “Bending Roll, Model PRB-MJ25TNC-0615” from RCS Companies to Iwatani Corporation of America. • A bill of lading dated March 16, 2018, indicating the exportation of “Machinery, 1 Wooden Packing of (Vacumed [sic]) of Bending Roll Machine Model: PRBMJ25TNC-0615” and referencing Booking Number 810091841. • Other documents describing the rolling machine and photographs of the crated bending roll machine. CBP denied Iwatani’s drawback claim and the drawback entry liquidated on August 24, 2018, without the requested refund of duties. CBP’s drawback specialist determined that the documents provided by Iwatani were missing specific identifiers that allowed CBP to trace the merchandise from import to export as required. ISSUE: Whether the evidence provided by the Protestant proves that the exported bending roll machine was the imported bending roll machine as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1). LAW AND ANALYSIS: We note initially that the protest was filed timely per 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3). The relevant entry liquidated on August 24, 2018, and the protest was filed on September 14, 2018, within 180 days of the liquidation. The matter protested, the refusal to pay a claim for drawback is a protestable decision per 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(6). Finally, the application for further review is valid in that the Protestant alleges that we have not addressed the issue previously per 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b). Drawback is a privilege, not a right, subject to compliance with the prescribed rules and regulations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(l)(1); see also Chrysler Motors Corp. v. United States, 14 Ct. Int’l Trade 807, 816 (1990), aff’d, 945 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir.1991); Guess? Inc. v. United States, 944 F.2d 855, 858 (1991) (“We are dealing [in discussing drawback] . . . with an exemption from duty, a statutory privilege due only when the enumerated conditions are met.”). One of the conditions that must be met when claiming drawback based on the exportation of an article, is that sufficient evidence must be provided to establish the article’s exportation. See e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1313(i) (“A person claiming drawback under this section based on the exportation of an 3 article shall provide proof of exportation of the article.”). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(i), claimants whose drawback-eligible goods are exported (in lieu of destruction) must provide proof of the exportation of the article that “establish[es] fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter” and “may be established [, inter alia,] through the use of records kept in the normal course of business[.]” Id.; see also 19 C.F.R. § 191.72. Iwatani made its drawback claim under the provision for direct identification unused merchandise drawback, provided for in 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1). Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1), drawback is authorized if imported merchandise on which was paid any duty, tax, or fee imposed under Federal law because of its importation is, within three years of the date of

We note initially that the protest was filed timely per 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3). The relevant entry liquidated on August 24, 2018, and the protest was filed on September 14, 2018, within 180 days of the liquidation. The matter protested, the refusal to pay a claim for drawback is a protestable decision per 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(6). Finally, the application for further review is valid in that the Protestant alleges that we have not addressed the issue previously per 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b). Drawback is a privilege, not a right, subject to compliance with the prescribed rules and regulations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1313(l)(1); see also Chrysler Motors Corp. v. United States, 14 Ct. Int’l Trade 807, 816 (1990), aff’d, 945 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir.1991); Guess? Inc. v. United States, 944 F.2d 855, 858 (1991) (“We are dealing [in discussing drawback] . . . with an exemption from duty, a statutory privilege due only when the enumerated conditions are met.”). One of the conditions that must be met when claiming drawback based on the exportation of an article, is that sufficient evidence must be provided to establish the article’s exportation. See e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1313(i) (“A person claiming drawback under this section based on the exportation of an 3 

article shall provide proof of exportation of the article.”). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(i), claimants whose drawback-eligible goods are exported (in lieu of destruction) must provide proof of the exportation of the article that “establish[es] fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter” and “may be established [, inter alia,] through the use of records kept in the normal course of business[.]” Id.; see also 19 C.F.R. § 191.72. Iwatani made its drawback claim under the provision for direct identification unused merchandise drawback, provided for in 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1). Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1), drawback is authorized if imported merchandise on which was paid any duty, tax, or fee imposed under Federal la