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 0223541 - HQ 0223772 > HQ 0223541

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 223541

January 21, 1992

BON-1-04 CO:R:C:E 223541 C


District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
Houston, TX

RE: Untimely request for extension of TIB - Case Nos. 91 5301 20724 and 91 5301 20727; temporary importation under bond

Dear Sir:

This responds to your memorandum of November 1, 1991, concerning the above subject (ENF-4-G LW). In accordance with section 10.37 of the Customs Regulations, you forwarded the company's untimely request for extension of the TIB period to this office.

The merchandise in question was admitted under Subchapter XIII, Chapter 98, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. (See particularly U.S. Note 1(a) of the subchapter.) Such merchandise may be admitted into the United States, under bond, for a temporary period of one year without the payment of duty. Extensions of the one year period may be obtained, in appropriate circumstances, such that the entire period authorized will not exceed three years. 19 C.F.R. 10.37. Upon expiration of the period, original or extended, the merchandise must be exported or destroyed.

An application for extension must be filed within one year of the date of importation. Failure to file a timely application will result in denial of the application. In only unusual circumstances will untimely filed applications be approved. Unimely applications will be approved when the following conditions are met: the merchandise covered by a TIB entry remains in the United States; there is no evidence indicating use of the merchandise contrary to the terms of the bond; the applicant is not a chronic violator; there is no lack of due diligence in compliance with the law and regulations; and there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a timely application.

Customs, in applying the above criteria, has approved untimely filed applications for extension only rarely. Usually, the issue is whether or not there has been a lack of due diligence by the importer. A lack of due diligence would lead to the conclusion that there is not a reasonable explanation for the failure to file in a timely manner. On the information submitted by the company submitting the request, there appears no reasonable explanation for failing to file a timely application for extension. In both cases, the entries had been extended once already. This clearly indicates that the company is aware of the regulation and able to comply. However, with respect to the instant request for extension, there is no evidence that the company was diligent in complying with the requirement.

The company clearly breached its bond contract. There is a complete lack of evidence upon which to grant the extraordinary relief applied for. We would consider such evidence if provided by the importer. Otherwise, we are unable to approve the request for extension. If, in your discretion, you are convinced that there is evidence to show eligibility for the extension, please resubmit the request with such evidence. Be advised that extraordinary circumstances are required. In the past, these have included the death of the person responsible for filing extension applications, complete destruction of records - such as where a building burned down, and the unforeseen emergency cancellation of a space launch.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling