DRA-4-CO:R:C:E 223502 CB
Regional Director
Commercial Operations Division
U. S. Customs Service
One World Trade Center
Suite 534
Long Beach, CA 90831-0700
RE: Internal Advice Request regarding Nike, Inc.; Certificates
of Delivery; 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1); 19 CFR 191.65
Dear Madame:
This is in response to your internal advice request (your
file DRA-1-O:C:T MW) dated October 8, 1991 wherein you requested
our answer to the three questions posed by NIKE, Inc.
Subsequently, by way of memorandum dated March 13, 1992 you
withdrew two of the questions and requested that we address the
remaining question. Our response is limited to same condition
drawback.
FACTS:
Nissho Iwai American Corp. (NIAC) serves as NIKE, Inc.'s
financier and importer of record on virtually all importations of
NIKE product into the United States. NIKE takes possession of
all product immediately after it clears customs. It is stated
that the product is never physically in the possession of NIAC.
All invoices from production factories show the purchaser as
"Nissho Iwai American Corp. for the account of NIKE, Inc." The
Entry Summary lists NIKE, Inc. as the ultimate consignee.
According to NIKE, at the time of importation, the products
are placed in a distribution facility where they are held until
an order is received from a customer. If the customer is outside
the United States, the ownership of the goods is then transferred
to NIKE International Ltd. (NIL), a wholly owned subsidiary of
NIKE, Inc., which handles the sales of all NIKE product outside
the United States. The goods are then exported by NIL to the
customer and a same condition drawback claim is filed.
ISSUE:
1) Whether a Certificate of Delivery is required between
the ultimate consignee and the importer of record?
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Section 1313(j)(1), Title 19, United States Code generally
provides for a refund of duty if a duty-paid article is exported
in the same condition as when imported, or is destroyed under
Customs supervision, within three years from date of importation,
and was not used in the United States.
Customs administration of the drawback laws is governed by
Part 191, Customs Regulations. More specifically, 19 CFR 191.141
(b)(1), provides that an exporter-claimant filing a same
condition drawback claim must furnish a copy of the import entry
or identify the import entry, date of entry, and port of entry.
It also provides that transfers shall be documented by
certificates of delivery pursuant to 19 CFR 191.65. Certificates
of delivery are required in order to identify the imported, duty-
paid merchandise which is the basis for drawback, and to prevent
an overpayment of drawback.
The answer to Nike's question is yes. In the instant case,
all of the entry documentation is filed by NIAC as importer of
record. Therefore, under the regulation, NIAC must supply a
certificate of delivery to enable Customs to trace the
merchandise from the custody of the importer to the custody of
the exporter. See section 191.141 (b)(1) of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 191.141(b)(1)).
HOLDING:
Certificates of Delivery, in the form of a completed CF 331,
are required when the importer is not the exporter of the
imported duty-paid merchandise which is the basis of a same
condition drawback claim.
Sincerely,
John A. Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division