HQ 228497 - Ruling request concerning proof of movement of goods from the United States to a foreign country; 19 CFR 191.72; Matsushita Avionics Systems Corporation - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

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 > 2000 HQ Rulings > HQ 228272 - HQ 546534 > HQ 228497

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 228497

March 1, 2000

DRA-2-02-RR:CR:DR
228497 CK

Category: DRAWBACK

Lamb & Lerch
Attn: David Ostheimer
233 Broadway
New York, New York 10279

RE: Ruling request concerning proof of movement of goods from the United States to a foreign country; 19 CFR 191.72; Matsushita Avionics Systems Corporation

Dear Mr. Ostheimer:

This is in reply to your ruling request on behalf of your client, Matsushita Avionics Systems Corporation, dated July 2, 1999. The following in ruling format is our reply.

FACTS:

Matsushita Avionics Systems Corporation (MASC) seeks a binding ruling concerning the acceptability of utilizing a computer-generated printout issued by a courier service for the purpose of establishing that, for customs duty drawback purposes, merchandise has left the United States.

MASC states that the merchandise it exports is transported by couriers, such as DHL Worldwide Express (DHL), Federal Express, Emery, or United Parcel Service. MASC states the couriers do not provide it with any export documentation other than a computer-generated printout.

MASC attached a copy of a service performance report issued by DHL for all accounts MASC maintains with DHL. Information provided on the report includes: 1) account number; 2) shipment date; 3) Ref/PO#, which is information entered by shipper in reference portion of airway bill; 4) origin IATA code; 5) number of pieces processed and total weight for the airbill noted; 6) prod type, which provides for either document or dutiable shipment answers; 7) consignee, which is the recipient; 8) destination code; 9) date delivered to final consignee; 10) day of week delivered to final consignee; 11) time of day delivered; 12) pieces of shipment under indicated airbill delivered on above date/time; 13) signature of receiving individual; 14) service standard in days transit, answered either yes or no; 15) number of days shipment was in transit, door to door; and 16) codes entered for incidences during transit.

In addition to the service performance report provided, also attached are two pages from the DHL handbook describing the column headings and various codes for incidents, found in column sixteen described above.

Also attached is a Federal Express daily activity report of transactions by shipment date for Matsushita Electronic, which includes MASC’s account number, for November. The report lists the following information: 1) shipment date; 2) delivery date; 3) delivery time; 4) EX CD, which is the original delivery exception code; 5) tracking number; 6) number of packages; 7) type of service; 8) shipment weight; 9) POD recipient, which is the person who signed for delivery of the package on receipt; 10) destination state; 11) destination city; 12) zip code; 13) miscellaneous charges; 14) gross charges; 15) total discounts; 16) billed charges; 17) type of shipment; and 18) DT codes, which lists the document type.

In addition to the daily activity report of transactions by shipment date is a page from the Federal Express handbook describing the column headings and various codes for shipment types, service types, exception codes, and DT codes. Also attached is a letter from the District Sales Manager for the Pacific Northwest District of Federal Express. The letter dated January 17, 2000 to MASC, states that the reports are printed off the FedEx mainframe in Memphis, TN, and cannot be manipulated in any way by our employees or our customers.

Also attached is an AEI international transit detail report for MASC, which includes MASC’s account number, for November. This detail report list the following information: 1) Org., which is the airport code of where the shipment originated; 2) Destination; 3) Reference number; 4) HB date, which is the date shipment was received at AEI station and entered into the computer; 5) POD date, which is the date the delivery was signed for at the destination; 6) elapsed days; 7) service type; 8) number of shipments; 9) weight; 10) chargeable weight; 11) freight charge; and 12) destination charge. However, no explanatory pages were included describing the column headings.

ISSUE:

Do the documents provide evidence of the movement of goods out of the United States to a foreign country?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The drawback laws are found at 19 U.S.C. 1313. One manner in which to claim drawback is to show the exportation of the goods from the United States to a foreign country. Exportation procedures are found in section 191.72 of the Customs Regulations. That regulation states, in pertinent part, that supporting documentary evidence shall establish fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter. Our analysis is limited to the question of whether the documents provided by MASC evidence the movement of its goods outside the United States to a foreign country. It is limited both at the request of the ruling requestor and by the fact that the documents, by themselves, do not establish the two-prong requirement of exportation.

We note that "exportation" is defined as "a severance of goods from the mass of things belonging to this country with the intention of uniting them to the mass of things belonging to some foreign country" (19 CFR 101.1(k), see also Swan v. Finch v. United States, 190 U.S. 143 (1903), and 17 Op. Att'y Gen. 579 (1883)). The date of exportation has been held to be "that time at which the goods in question finally depart the country of exportation" (National Sugar Refining v. United States, 84 Cust. Ct. 118, 120, C.D. 4849; 488 F. Supp. 907 (1980); see also, Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. United States, 1 Cust. Ct. App. 290, T.D. 31353 (1911), and Ruth F.

The documents supplied by MASC, which include the reports generated by DHL, Federal Express, and AEI, do show a movement of goods from the United States. This is evidenced by the positive proof set forth in the reports, namely, the date of receipt by the recipient. The reports set forth the destination, the name of the recipient, and the date and time of receipt. These documents are sufficient to show the movement of the goods from the United States to a foreign country. However, the receipt of the goods, by itself, does not show the second prong of “exportation,” which requires the intention of uniting the goods to the commerce of the foreign country.

Additionally, the reports show the date and time of receipt by the recipient in the foreign country, however, they do not show the date they were transported out of the United States. If the courier could only show delivery in the foreign country after the relevant time limit for exportation, the evidence will not be sufficient to presume that exportation occurred before the export time period expired. However, if the date of delivery, in the foreign country is within the relevant statutory period for a timely exportation, the courier’s report is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for movement from the United States.

HOLDING:

The documents provided by MASC, computer generated reports by DHL, Federal Express, and AEI, are sufficient to show the movement of goods from the United States to a foreign country.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling