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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0223198 - HQ 0223539 > HQ 0223474

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 223474

April 3, 1992

BON-1-04 CO:R:C:E 223474 TLS


District Director
U.S. Customs Service
1 East Bay Street
Savannah, Georgia 31401

RE: Request for extension of temporary importation bond (TIB) #110-1712335-4; 19 CFR 10.37.

Dear Sir:

The above-referenced request has been forwarded to this office for consideration. We have considered the points raised by the importer and your office. Our decision follows.


The subject bond had already been extended for one year when it expired on June 6, 1991. The importer filed a request for extension by letter dated September 4, 1991. The letter, of course, came after the expiration date but before a demand for liquidated damages was issued. Such demand remains unissued pending the outcome of this decision.

The September 4 letter explained the basis for requesting a second extension. About six weeks after the original entry involving two separate products was made, the entire bulk of one particular product was exported. At this point, all of the second product remains in the U.S. The importer requested the first extension and is requesting this extension because the remaining product is exported to countries where the political climate is volatile. For this reason, it is explained, no orders have been received for this product to date. The merchandise is currently warehoused where it has been since entered; it has not been tampered with in any sense. If the extension is granted, the merchandise will be reformulated for any orders received. No details were provided on the reformulation, however.


Whether an extension may be granted on a temporary importation bond when the merchandise has not been exported within the bond term because no orders have been received for it.


The Customs regulations cover extensions of temporary importation bonds (TIBs). Under 19 CFR 10.37, the following is provided for:

Extension of time for exportation.
The period of time during which merchandise under [a TIB entry] may remain in [the Customs territory] may be extended for not more than two further periods of 1 year each... Any untimely request for an extension of time for exportation shall be referred to [the Entry Rulings Branch at Customs Headquarters] for disposition. (Emphasis added.)

This issue of whether Customs may grant an extension of a TIB pursuant to an untimely request for such has been addressed previously. In a 1989 Customs ruling, it was held that a one year extension request on a TIB may be granted retroactively. The decision found that if the bond holder meets all the requirements for an extension, it may be granted even if the request for such was untimely. Customs ruling HQ 221486 (August 21, 1989).

We see no reason not to follow the reasoning of that decision in this case. Except for not timely filing the request for a second extension, the bond holder has met all the requirements for such; the circumstances that existed when the first extension was granted still exist at this point. Furthermore, the fact that an untimely request for extension may be submitted to this office for further consideration suggests that Part 10.37 permits the granting of an untimely request. Given the unforeseen hardship the bond holder has endured, further extension is justified. Therefore, we find sufficient reason to grant a second one year extension of the TIB in this case. (As an alternative, the importer could satisfy its obligation to export by placing the article in an FTZ under zone restricted status. The use of the FTZ in this situation would appear to preclude any further manipulation, however.)


The holder of the temporary importation bond in this case is granted an extension on that bond. The extension is applicable retroactive from June 7, 1991 to June 6, 1992. Liquidated damages should not be collected.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling