CBP Denies Protest of Duty-Free Treatment of Plastic Containers for Failing Documentation Requirements

Inconsistent documentation cost a manufacturer of plastic pallets, trays and lids duty-free treatment on returned items, CBP said in a June 13 HQ ruling addressed to the Automotive and Aerospace Center of Excellence and Expertise, directing it to deny a protest by ZF TRW Canada (ZF).

The merchandise originally was entered in 2018 and liquidated the following year. ZF claimed the goods were eligible for the duty exemption in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 9801.00.10, which also allows for an exemption from the merchandise processing fee (MPF). ZF sought reliquidation of the entries and a refund of duties and of the MPF paid, with interest. The Automotive and Aerospace Center denied the request. It said the model number on the manufacturer’s affidavit doesn't correspond to the model number for the imported merchandise, the Declaration of Foreign Shipper doesn't match with the invoice information, and the port and dates aren't specific.

The ruling laid out the underlying documentation requirements in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which amended subheading 9801.00.10 to include "any products which are returned within 3 years after having been exported ... without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means while abroad." To meet these requirements, the items must meet specific documentary requirements. The foreign shipper is required to declare the port and date of exportation; the quantity, value and a description of the merchandise; the date of the declaration; and whether the articles were returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition. The owner or agent also must declare that the shipper’s statement is true; the articles weren't manufactured or produced in the U.S. under subheading 9813.00.05; and the articles were exported from the U.S. without drawback, along with the name and location of the manufacturer and the date of the declaration.

CBP said the port of entry correctly noted the shipper's declaration contained inconsistent information as to the number of base pallets, and that the owner's affidavit contained inconsistent item numbers and descriptions. Therefore, CBP HQ concluded the documentary requirements were unmet, and the protest should be denied.