94-20028. Eliminate Notice of Exportation, Customs Form 7511, as Proof of Exportation for Drawback; Withdrawal  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
8/16/1994
Published:
08/16/1994
Department:
Treasury Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
Document Number:
94-20028
Dates:
This withdrawal is effective on August 16, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: August 16, 1994
CFR: (1)
19 CFR 191