Protest # 3801-1-100230; Chrysler Corporation; 19 U.S.C.1313(j); Same Condition Drawback; Transferred to a Foreign TradeZone for the Purpose of Manufacturing

HQ 223424 January 22, 1992 FOR-CO:R:C:E 223424 DHS CATEGORY: Foreign Trade Zones Regional Commissioner of Customs Chicago, Illinois 60603-5790 RE: Protest # 3801-1-100230; Chrysler Corporation; 19 U.S.C. 1313(j); Same Condition Drawback; Transferred to a Foreign Trade Zone for the Purpose of Manufacturing Dear Sir: The above referenced protest has been forwarded to this office for further review. We have considered the points raised by the protestant and your office. Our decision follows. FACTS: On August 8, 1990, the protestant imported and paid duty on merchandise upon its entry into the U.S. At the same time, a claim for drawback of duties, in the amount of $886,407.00, under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j), was also presented. On December 19, 1990, Customs liquidated the entry and denied drawback. The protestant contests this decision, contending that the transfer of the merchandise to a zone for the purpose of manufacturing fulfills all the requirements of an exportation as required under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j). In response to this argument, your office has directed our attention to T.D. 89-4, dated February 27, 1989. ISSUE: Is duty-paid imported merchandise, which is transferred to a foreign-trade zone for the purpose of manufacturing for ultimate domestic consumption, subject to drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Without any additional information, we assume the facts (other than the applicable dates) and issue presented in the protest are identical to those argued at length by counsel for the protestant before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade in Chrysler Motors Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 90-130 (Ct. Int'l Trade, decided December 11, 1990), aff'd C.A.F.C. (Appeal No. 91-1190, decided October 8, 1991). Therefore, in conformity with T.D. 89-4 and this opinion, we reiterate that drawback will not be authorized for merchandise brought into a foreign-trade zone for the purpose of manufacturing for domestic consumption because that admission into a foreign-trade zone is not an exportation. Therefore, the denial of drawback was proper. HOLDING: Imported merchandise, which is transferred to a foreign- trade zone for the purpose of manufacturing for ultimate domestic consumption, is not exported and is not eligible for drawback. You are instructed to deny the protest. A copy of this decision should be attached to the CF 19, Notice of Action, sent to the protestant to satisfy the notice requirement of section 174.30(a), Customs Regulations. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division