19 C.F.R. § 191.21
Direct identification drawback
Section 313(a) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(a)), provides for drawback upon the exportation, or destruction under Customs supervision, of articles which are not used in the United States prior to their exportation or destruction, and which are manufactured or produced in the United States wholly or in part with the use of particular imported, duty-paid merchandise and/or drawback product(s). Where two or more products result, drawback shall be distributed among the products in accordance with their relative value (see § 191.2(u)) at the time of separation. Merchandise may be identified for drawback purposes under 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) in the manner provided for and prescribed in § 191.14 of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: Int'l Light Metals, a Div. of Martin Marietta Tech., Inc. v. United States, 194 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Int'l Light Metals, a Div. of Martin Marietta Tech., Inc. v. United States, 194 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “” See 19 C.F.R. § 191.21 (a) (1994). II ILM is a Division of Martin Marietta Technologies, Inc.”
Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “23 (d) (1996); 19 C.F.R. § 191.45 (1996). Among other things, the regulations provide that “each manufacturer .”
Int'l Light Metals v. United States, 279 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “” 19 C.F.R. § 191.21 (a) (1994). B. The detailed facts of this case are set forth in this court’s opinion in the prior appeal.”
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 C.F.R. § 191.21 (1996). A party’s entitlement to receive a drawback is dependent upon Customs’ approval of the proposed contract.”
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. United States, 561 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “1; see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 191.21 & 191.23 (1996). The current regulations refer to the analogous procedure of a claimant's operating under a general or specific drawback “ruling” instead of a drawback “contract.”
Int'l Light Metals v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “See 19 C.F.R. § 191.21 (a) (“[E]ach manufacturer or producer of articles intended for exportation with drawback, .”
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.