19 U.S.C. § 1677h
Drawback treatment
For purposes of any law relating to the drawback of customs duties, countervailing duties and antidumping duties imposed by this subtitle shall not be treated as being regular customs duties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “”- 19 U.S.C. § 1677h(c)(3). 3 . See Import Admin.”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 199 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “19 U.S.C. § 1677h (1988). Torrington also points out that the ITA agreed with and followed this position in Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 Fed.”
Dynacraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 119 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “In 1988, Congress once more acknowledged the distinction between general customs duties and antidumping and countervailing duties when it amended 19 U.S.C. § 1677h (1988). 17 It provided that anti-dumping and countervailing duties would no longer be treated as “regular customs…”
PQ Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 724 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). “§ 1673i (1982), current version at 19 U.S.C. § 1677h (Supp. III 1985)). Another case noted that ".”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 82 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “Thus, Congress enacted 19 U.S.C. § 1677h (1988), which provides that “[f]or purposes of any law relating to the drawback of customs duties .”
S. Shrimp All. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “, 19 U.S.C. § 1677h (antidumping duties are not regular customs duties for purposes of duty drawback).”
Florida Citrus Mut. v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “Plaintiffs furthermore contend that because Congress in 1988 amended 19 U.S.C. § 1677h to make antidumping and countervailing duties ineligible for refunds as “regular customs duties” under the drawback program, the offset would act to create an unintentional overlap between the…”
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 2 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677h. The pendency of any antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings thus had no bearing whatsoever on Customs’ ability to review and take appropriate action on pre-enactment drawback claims (including Ford’s Drawback Claims) during the one-year period…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677h(c)(3) — 1 case
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “”- 19 U.S.C. § 1677h(c)(3). 3 . See Import Admin.”
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.