19 C.F.R. § 191.53

Restructuring of claims

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Customs may require claimants to restructure their drawback claims in such a manner as to foster Customs administrative efficiency. In making this determination, Customs will consider the following factors:

(1) The number of transactions of the claimant (imports and exports);

(2) The value of the claims;

(3) The frequency of claims;

(4) The product or products being claimed; and

(5) For 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) and 1313(b) claims, the provisions, as applicable, of the general manufacturing drawback ruling or the specific manufacturing drawback ruling.

(b) Exemption from restructuring; criteria. In order to be exempt from a restructuring, a claimant must demonstrate an inability or impracticability in restructuring its claims as required by Customs and must provide a mutually acceptable alternative. Criteria used in such determination will include a demonstration by the claimant of one or more of the following:

(1) Complexities caused by multiple commodities or the applicable general manufacturing drawback ruling or the specific manufacturing drawback ruling;

(2) Variable and conflicting manufacturing and inventory periods (for example, financial, accounting and manufacturing records maintained are significantly different);

(3) Complexities caused by multiple manufacturing locations;

(4) Complexities caused by difficulty in adjusting accounting and inventory records (for example, records maintained—financial or accounting—are significantly different); and/or

(5) Complexities caused by significantly different methods of operation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “2d at 1035 -36 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 191.53 (1993); 19 C.F.R. § 131.”

Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “19 C.F.R. § 191.53 (1993). Pillsbury secured another tool for improving efficiency in its drawback procedures when it received, also by letter on March 22, 1985, a “blanket waiver” of the regulatory requirement that it furnish Customs with a five working days’ advance notice of…”

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.