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 > 2006 HQ Rulings > HQ 116752 - HQ 563352 > HQ 227868

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 227868





October 19, 1998

DRA-1-06-DRA-2-02
RR:CR:DR 227868 CK

CATEGORY: DRAWBACK

Mr. Richard M. Kilbane
Vice President
California Industrial Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 2261
11525 South Shoemaker Avenue
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

RE: Ruling Request; Proof of Export; Shipping/Packing lists; Certification; 19 CFR 191.72

Dear Mr. Kilbane:

We are writing in response to your request for a ruling, dated January 7, 1998. Our response to your request is as follows:

FACTS:

California Industrial Products, Inc. (CIP) is a manufacturer of automotive fasteners headquartered in Santa Fe Springs, California. CIP has a manufacturing drawback program under T.D. 81-74 on file with U.S. Customs in Chicago.

CIP has filed drawback on Canadian shipments from November 1992 to December 1995. CIP uses common carriers and customer pick-ups in transporting products to Canada. Until the end of the first quarter of 1993, CIP utilized a straight bill of lading, which indicated, carrier, date, quantities shipped, and was signed by the truck driver. A copy of such a bill of lading is attached to the request.

Effective April 1, 1993, one document began functioning as a Shipper/Packing list and bill of lading. This Shipper/Packing list indicated shipper of record, ship to destination, description and quantities of product shipped, shipping method, and is signed by the trucker accepting the material for export delivery. Attached are two copies of such a Shipper/Packing list, one with a shipping company, and one with a customer pick-up.

On October 30, 1995, CIP requested and received permission from Chicago Customs to use the Shipper/Packing list as proof of exportation for material exported to Canada by truck for drawback purposes. A copy of the acceptance letter, dated February 27, 1996 is attached.

The first Shipper/Packing list is on California Industrial Products, Inc. stationary, with a Michigan address. It lists the buyer and place of shipment as TI Automotive in Ontario, Canada. It has two lines of parts and the quantities of each. It states on the bottom of the page, “Shipper load and/or consignee unload,” and lists the total amount of the shipment. Handwritten is the total again, the name of the shipping company, a driver’s name, and a date. Additionally, there is a stamped certification that states, “This is to certify that the parts identified above have been manufactured, inspected & tested in accordance with the purchase order & latest revision of the drawing/specification & found to meet all requirements specified. Objective evidence of all inspections, tests & process controls is on file at the factory.” This stamp is then initialed by the Quality Control Manager, and dated. The second attachment of a Shipper/Packing list contains the same information, except that the buyer and recipient is SKD Company- Brampton, from Ontario, Canada. The bottom is also signed by another individual and is not dated.

ISSUE:

Whether the submitted Shipper/Packing lists satisfy the regulatory requirements for proof of exportation for purposes of claiming drawback for the period of April 1993 to December 1995.

LAW/ANALYSIS:

The available procedures for establishment of exportation of articles for drawback purposes, during the period in question, are set forth in 19 C.F.R. §191.72 (a) through (e). This section calls for supporting documentary evidence which shall establish fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter. The procedures for establishing exportation outlined by the section include but are not limited to: “(a) Actual evidence of exportation consisting of documentary evidence, such as an originally signed bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest, or certified copies thereof, issued by the exporting carrier[.]”

In this case, the documents provided are neither the originals, nor certified copies of the Shipper/Packing lists, which are used by CPI as a combination packing list and bill of lading. The Shipper/Packing lists provided do have a certification, but it is for quality control. Additionally, while they are signed by a disinterested third party carrier, and dated, apparently as to the date of acceptance of crated pallets, there is no evidence that the goods listed were exported. The Shipper/Packing list is dated by the shipper, however, we have no evidence as to what that date signifies, at no place on the document is there any certification by the shipper that the goods have been exported from the United States. As required by the above stated regulation there must be evidence that establishes the date and fact of exportation. The Shipper/Packing lists provided do not clearly establish that exportation occurred, or the date of exportation.

Additionally, there is no certification that the Shipper/Packing list is a true copy of the original Shipper/Packing list signed by the shipper. If a drawback claimant chooses to show an exportation with a bill of lading, and cannot provide Customs with the original, the claimant must provide Customs with a copy certified to be a true copy of the original. With respect to certification, in C.S.D. 79254, Customs stated that in support of an uncertified notice of exportation, company invoices are not acceptable to prove exportation, however, “[o]ther documents such as inland bills of lading certified by the carrier, customs officer, or another disinterested third party having knowledge of the exportation, are acceptable.” “Certified copy” is defined as a “copy certified as true by the officer to whose custody the original is entrusted.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 1969, at 188. Based on the definition and C.S.D. 79254, certification by the carrier or freight forwarder to whom the originals have been given, would be acceptable certification, as these are disinterested third parties who are entrusted with the original bills of lading for a period during the transaction.

HOLDING:

The Shipping/Packing lists submitted as proof of exportation for the period of April 1993 to December 1995 do not satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR § 191.72. The Shipping/Packing lists do not show that the exportation occurred, or the date of exportation. In addition, the documents, which are copies, are not certified as being true copies of the original lists.

Certified true copies of the Candadian Customs entry would appear to be able to provide the missing information as to the fact and date of exportation, together with certified copies of these Shipper/Packing lists. Another possible means of providing the missing information would be an affidavit of the truck driver who drove the truck into Canada, or a certified copy of the truck log if the date of entry into Canada is so recorded on the log, attesting to the fact and date of exportation, together with certified copies of these Shipper/Packing lists.

Sincerely,

William G. Rosoff, Chief
Duty and Refund Determination Branch


Previous Ruling Next Ruling