United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0111398 - HQ 0222425 > HQ 0221414

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 221414

April 11, 1990

DRA-2-02-CO:R:C:E 221414 C


Alan P. Rodgers
Senior Vice President
J. M. Rodgers Company, Inc.
245 Woodport Rd.
Sparta, New Jersey, 07871-2644

RE: 19 U.S.C. 1313; 19 CFR 101.1(k); drawback paid upon exportation; exportation defined

Dear Mr. Rodgers:

This responds to your letter of May 3, 1989, pertaining to drawback eligibility for cable laid between Hawaii and Guam and Japan. The cable extends from Hawaii to Guam, via a junction box located in international waters near Guam. From the junction box, a segment of cable extends to Japan.

Customs has recognized that cable is exported for drawback purposes when laid between the United States and a foreign country. See CSD 81-167. This ruling, not unprecedented (207838, June 22, 1977; 207847, June 24, 1977), embodies a kind of exception to Customs long established definition of exportation: a severance of goods from the mass of things belonging to this country with the intention of uniting them to the mass of things belonging to some foreign country. (Emphasis added.) 19 CFR 101.1(l). See also Swan and Finch Co. v. United States, 19 U.S. 143 (1903) and The National Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, 26 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 1307 (1951). Obviously, cable laid between the United States and a foreign country, at least that segment which lies beneath international waters, has not been joined to the "mass of things belonging to some foreign country."

The ruling provides that for drawback purposes only, and considering the unique commodity involved - international cable which must necessarily lie in international waters between the countries involved, an exportation will be recognized.

Customs also has ruled that exportations to Guam are not considered exportations to a foreign country; therefore, such shipments are not eligible for drawback. See CSD 79-77. See also Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United States, 55 Cust. Ct. 319, C.D. 2597 (1965).

Based on the foregoing, the cable you inquired about is exported, but the portion of the cable exported to Guam is not entitled to drawback. Therefore, only that portion of the cable which can be established indisputably as being exported to Japan is entitled to drawback treatment. On the facts you submitted, that portion is the cable laid between the junction box and Japan.

If you have any further questions, please contact this office.


Jerry Laderberg, Acting Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling