19 C.F.R. § 191.141
Drawback allowance
Section 313(h) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(h)), provides for drawback on the exportation of jet aircraft engines manufactured or produced abroad that have been overhauled, repaired, rebuilt, or reconditioned in the United States with the use of imported merchandise, including parts.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1991–2005 · leading case: B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 1148 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 1148 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “§ 1313 (j)(2), and the Customs Service regulations interpreting it, primarily 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h). Defendant’s Opposition, at 9.”
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “The Court previously held that 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) was an improperly promulgated substantive rule and as a result has no force or effect: In Central Soya, the Court ordered that Customs amend 19 C.”
Cent. Soya Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F. Supp. 133 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). “19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) (1990). It is clear that Customs Regulation 191.”
Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “See 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (b)(2)(ii) (1993). By letter dated November 3, 1992, Customs revoked Pillsbury’s ESP authority and blanket waiver.”
Cargill Citro-Am., Inc. v. United States, 395 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “See 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (b). The claimant must identify the import entry, as well as the date and port of entry.”
Cent. Soya Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). “19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) (1990). Hence, the question presented, on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, is whether the Customs Service exceeded its statutory authority in denying the plaintiff substitution same…”
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 455 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “That paragraph 7 of the Judgment Order shall be amended to read: “That the Customs Service is hereby enjoined from enforcing the Customs regulations codified at 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) to the extent that it requires possession of imported merchandise and is inconsistent with…”
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 558 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “Paragraph 5 ofthe Judgment Order, as amended, provides that “the Customs regulation codified at 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) was promulgated without public notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1195 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “Judgment Musgrave, Judge: On November 5, 1993, the Court heard argument on whether the Commissioner of Customs should be enjoined from effecting revocation by way of a September 28, 1993 letter of plaintiffs Export Summary Procedure (“ESP”), and the “blanket waiver,” granted to…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 191.141(h) — 2 cases
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “The Court previously held that 19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) was an improperly promulgated substantive rule and as a result has no force or effect: In Central Soya, the Court ordered that Customs amend 19 C.”
Cent. Soya Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). “19 C.F.R. § 191.141 (h) (1990). Hence, the question presented, on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, is whether the Customs Service exceeded its statutory authority in denying the plaintiff substitution same…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.