[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20028]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
19 CFR Part 191
Eliminate Notice of Exportation, Customs Form 7511, as Proof of
Exportation for Drawback; Withdrawal
AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws the proposed amendment to the Customs
Regulations, which would have eliminated the requirement that the
notice of exportation, Customs Form 7511, be submitted as proof of
exportation for the purpose of obtaining drawback, and instead
permitted the use of other documents generated internally in the course
of trade to prove exportation. Customs has concluded that the retention
of the notice of exportation is essential, especially in those
circumstances where the drawback claimant is not the direct exporter,
and the exporter refuses to provide its own documentary evidence to the
claimant because of business confidentiality or the administrative cost
of providing such supporting documents.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This withdrawal is effective on August 16, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Friedman, Office of Trade
Operations, (202-927-0916).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Drawback is a refund or remission, in whole or in part, of a
Customs duty, internal revenue tax or fee. There are a number of
different kinds of drawback authorized under law, including, for
example, manufacturing drawback and unused merchandise drawback. In
order to qualify for drawback, there must be an exportation or a
destruction under Customs supervision. The statute providing for
specific types of drawback is 19 U.S.C. 1313. Part 191, Customs
Regulations (19 CFR part 191), contains the general regulations for
drawback claims and specialized provisions for specific types of
drawback claims.
The requirements for establishing the exportation of merchandise as
part of a drawback claim are set forth in subpart E of part 191. This
subpart authorizes the use of several alternative procedures to
establish exportation. Two such alternatives, contained in
Secs. 191.51(a) and 191.52 (19 CFR 191.51(a), 191.52), require a
claimant, in order to receive drawback, to file a notice of exportation
on Customs Form (CF) 7511, either uncertified, or certified by a
Customs officer at the time of exportation, for each shipment of
merchandise exported. The information required on a CF 7511 consists of
the name of the exporting vessel or carrier, the number and kinds of
packages and their marks and numbers, a description of the merchandise,
the name of the exporter, and the country of ultimate destination. This
information, however, is also available from other paperwork,
particularly documents usually generated by the exporter internally in
the process of trade.
Accordingly, Customs published a notice of proposed rulemaking in
the Federal Register on October 7, 1992 (57 FR 46113), which would have
eliminated the notice of exportation, CF 7511, and instead permitted
the use of such other documents generated internally in the course of
trade to prove exportation for purposes of obtaining drawback. It was
believed that this would result in a saving of paperwork to the benefit
of both Customs as well as the drawback claimant.
Discussion of Comments
Thirty comments were received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking. Of the thirty comments only four generally were in favor of
eliminating or replacing the CF 7511. The remaining twenty-six comments
strongly opposed the elimination of the CF 7511.
Almost all of the commenters opposing the elimination of the CF
7511 stated that they would be forced to relinquish their right to
claim drawback whenever they were not the direct exporter. A separate
exporter might not be willing to provide documentation that would
reveal information such as the name and address of the foreign
purchaser and prices charged by the exporter.
Also, many of these commenters believed that the CF 7511 was
necessary for shipments to Mexico and Canada, citing the unavailability
of other documents as a continuing problem for drawback claimants.
Another reason against the proposed change mentioned by several
commenters was the fact that the reverse side of the CF 7511 is used
for the endorsement of drawback rights from one party to another. This
endorsement also satisfies the requirement of Sec. 191.73(a), which
requires satisfactory evidence that the reservation was made with the
knowledge and consent of the exporter. If this form were to be
abolished, Customs would probably have to develop another form to take
its place.
It was further asserted that the CF 7511 in fact also provided
information that might not be readily available on other documents,
such as the name of the carrier, the date of exportation, the
destination, and the shipper.
Conclusion
Though the concerns about proof of exportation to Mexico and Canada
have been resolved by Sec. 181.47(c), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
181.47(c)), which also allows a copy of the Canadian or Mexican customs
entry to be used as proof of exportation, Customs is, nevertheless,
constrained to conclude that the comments submitted point out
persuasive, and controlling, reasons militating against adoption of the
proposal, and that, on balance, the retention of the notice of
exportation satisfies the concerns of the trade, while occasioning
relatively minimum and reasonably justified time and effort in its
preparation and/or certification. In particular, the retention of the
notice is essential, especially in those circumstances where the
drawback claimant is not the direct exporter, and the exporter refuses
to provide its own documentary evidence to the claimant because of
business confidentiality or the administrative cost of providing such
supporting documents.
Withdrawal of Proposal
In view of the foregoing, and after consideration of the comments
received and further review of the matter, Customs has determined to
withdraw the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on October 7, 1992 (57 FR 46113).
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document was Russell Berger,
Regulations Branch, U.S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other
offices participated in its development.
Michael H. Lane,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: July 22, 1994.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 94-20028 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P