[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Tom Ahearn
Date: 15 Aug 2002
Time: 15:25:08
Remote Name: 205.188.200.183
As anyone who has been involved in drawback for over 10 years knows, Rosoff main goal in life is to delay, deter and deny drawback. This is pointedly so in his extreme detest for TD 82-36. In the late 1980's he started deny drawback, primarily in the metals area, because dissimilar raw materials were not (according to him) "same kind and quality". I personnaly have fought this battle with him many times and defeated many of his arguments but still no approvals. In a memo he wrote in 1993/4, he commented, in paraphrase, maybe the Court can do what we cant, stop 82-36. Fortunately the Court did not do this. In both the ILM and DuPont cases, the Court upheld the principle that dissimilar materials, when used for the same purpose and used interchangeably, are same kind and quality. Losing on this point, Rosoff now proposes to allocate the duty (not the drawback) to components of the imported merchandise and only allow drawback on the allocated portion to the particular component. This is so far-fetched that I am surprised it has gotten this far. Not ony is he proposing to violate the law (drawback is allowed on the imported merchandise used), but he is allocating duty to waste materials, upon which there is no drawback. Effectively, he is rewriting Same Kind and Quality, practically elinimating "appearing in" as a viable drawback basis and providing for the allocation of duty to components of imported merchandise. If he succeeds in this, what will be his next step. This proposal is contrary to law, is detrimental to all claimants using the "appearing in" basis and will be used as a stepping stone to further restrictions in drawback. Send in your comments and copy in your legislators. This is highly important.