HQ 227627

July 20, 1999

DRA-2-RR:CR:DR 227627 IOR

CATEGORY: Drawback

Port Director

U.S. Customs Service

555 Battery Street

P.O. Box 2450

San Francisco, CA 94126

**Attn: Drawback Unit**

RE: Application for Further Review Protest No. 2809-97-100797; drawback;
19 U.S.C. 1313(b); 19 U.S.C. 1313(v); 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(1); 19 CFR
174.12; 19 CFR 174.14(a); 19 CFR 174.28; 19 CFR 191.51; 19 CFR 191.52

Dear Madam:

The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office for review. We
have considered the facts and issues raised, including information
obtained from additional submissions and a meeting at our offices
between my staff and counsel for protestant, and our decision follows.

**FACTS:**

This protest was filed against the denial of drawback in four
substitution manufacturing drawback claims. The subject drawback entries
were filed in San Francisco on June 10, 1996 (110-xxxx6070), June 21,
1996 (110-xxxx6047), and August 27, 1996 (110-xxxx6088 and
110-xxxx6062). Prior to the filing of the four subject drawback entries,
four different drawback entries were filed in Miami on August 17, 1994,
and were liquidated with no drawback on April 7, 1995. According to a
letter from Customs dated December 9, 1994, the claims were denied for
several procedural reasons, including that the protestant's drawback
ruling had expired. According to the protestant, it hired a broker for
assistance in drawback matters, and received approval of a specific
drawback ruling, by Customs letter dated October 26, 1995, pursuant to
which, the drawback claims were to be filed in Miami, Florida.
Subsequently, the protestant filed the subject drawback entries, in San
Francisco, California, based on the new drawback ruling. The subject
drawback claims were based on the same exportations upon which the four
prior claims had been based, with the exception of entries 110-xxxx6088
and 110-xxxx6047. Drawback entry 110-xxxx6088 does not include 15 small
exports to Canada that had been included in the prior entry, and
drawback entry 110-xxxx6047 includes six exports that were included in
the prior entry, plus two additional exports that were not the subject
of any of the prior drawback entries for which drawback was disallowed.

At the time under consideration in this matter, the protestant had an
approved drawback contract ([see]{.underline} T.D. 96-17-X; at the time
the drawback proposal was approved, such approvals were referred to as
"contracts" under 19 CFR 191.21, but under the current revised
regulations they are "rulings") for substitution manufacturing drawback
under 19 U.S.C. §1313(b). The ruling provided for drawback in an
operation in which \"concentrated orange juice for manufacturing\" was
the imported merchandise (or drawback product) to be designated as the
basis for drawback on the exported articles and the same merchandise was
the duty-paid, duty-free, or domestic merchandise of the same kind and
quality as that designated. According to the ruling, the exported
articles on which drawback was to be claimed was 1) frozen concentrated
orange juice; 2) bulk concentrated orange juice; 3) orange juice from
concentrate (reconstituted); and 4) juices of various juice blends, each
containing concentrated orange juice for manufacturing.

A letter dated November 20, 1996 from Customs, informed the protestant
that the reason the claim would be liquidated with no drawback was that
the exported merchandise claimed on the subject drawback claims was also
the basis for other drawback claims. The subject four drawback claims
were liquidated with no drawback by Customs on February 7, 1997. The
protest was filed on May 7, 1997, in which the protestant takes the
position that because the prior claims were liquidated with no drawback,
\"the prior, imperfect drawback claims cannot bar the subsequent, later
claims, as long as such later claims were timely filed and otherwise met
all of the applicable drawback requirements.\" The San Francisco
Drawback Unit takes the position that the administrative remedy for the
denial of drawback on the prior claims would have been to protest the
liquidation, and not the filing of new entries, and in support of its
position cites 19 U.S.C. §1313(v).

The drawback entries identified the designated imported duty paid
merchandise[^1], receipt and use in manufacturing date, and exported
product, as follows:

[Drawback entry]{.underline} [Import entry \# and date]{.underline}
[Receipt / use date]{.underline} [CD Del. date]{.underline} [Export
article]{.underline}

110-xxxx6047 032-xxxx2384 9/28/93 9/30/93 / 10/25/93 9/28/93 orange
concentrate

110-xxxx6070 032-xxxx0306 9/01/93 9/ 3/93 / 10/ 7/93 9/2/93 orange
concentrate

110-xxxx6088 032-xxxx2607 11/2/93 10/29/93 / 11/29/93 11/2/93 orng/straw
peach base

110-xxxx6062 032-xxxx8111 7/12/93 7/13/93 / 7/29/93 7/12/93 orng/straw
peach base

In the above, the import dates are according to Customs Automated
Commercial System (ACS) records, and the \"CD Del. date\" refers to the
date the imported merchandise was delivered to the protestant as shown
on the certificates of delivery included with the entry. According to
drawback entry 110-xxxx6070, the receipt date and the CD Del. date of
the designated merchandise is prior to the first warehouse withdrawal of
the merchandise, which according to ACS occurred on September 22, 1993.
The use date shown above, is the last date of use shown on the drawback
entry.

All of the exportations were to Japan. Each drawback entry was
accompanied by a chronological summary of exports which identified the
date of export, exporting carrier, destination, and quantity of 52
gallon drums of manufactured article exported. The quantity of single
strength orange juice exported is calculated by using the factors
provided on the schedule attached to the drawback ruling, which schedule
is periodically updated by the protestant. Each chronological summary
includes the total number of single strength gallons of orange juice
exported for the entire drawback entry.

For purposes of verifying that the subject claims meet the requirements
for drawback under 1313(b), this office requested that the protestant
provide evidence of exportation for the exportations of January 18, 1994
and February 15, 1994, supporting drawback entry 110-xxxx6047. The
documentation provided by the protestant, by submission dated April 7,
1998, for each of the two exportations included an uncertified Notice of
Exportation of Articles with Benefit of Drawback (CF7511), a Shipper's
Export Declaration (\"SED\"), a through bill of lading, and invoices for
the exported articles with attached drum manifest showing the barrel
number and production date of each drum covered by the invoice.

The CF7511\'s identify the exporter, date of export, consignee, export
articles, quantity of drums exported and the quantity of single strength
gallons of orange juice exported. The bills of lading are dated and
signed, and indicate the quantity of drums exported, the
shipper/exporter and the consignee. The invoices are on the protestant's
invoice form, identify the foreign purchaser, the article sold, the
quantity of drums sold, and the quantity of gallons of concentrate sold.
The drum manifests identify the production date of each barrel of the
exported article, as well as the pounds solid in each barrel. The dates
of production of the articles exported January 18, 1994, are from
December 17, 1993 through January 5, 1994. The dates of production of
the articles exported February 15, 1994, are from February 8, 1994
through February 9, 1994.

By letter dated February 6, 1997, the protestant confirmed a February 5
telephone conversation with Customs regarding a revision in the
appearing in factor for the Orange Strawberry Peach Base exported to
Japan. In its submission of April 7, 1998, the protestant requests that
the February 6, 1997 letter be treated as a request for correction of a
clerical error under 19 U.S.C. §1520(c), and that the drawback claims be
reliquidated to reflect greater refunds as a result of the correction in
the error in the appearing in factor. Alternatively, the protestant
requests that the correction of the erroneous computation be considered
an \"alternative claim\" or \"additional grounds or arguments\" under 19
CFR 174.28. The corrected appearing in factors are applicable to entry
numbers 110-xxxx6062 and 110-xxxx6088. The merchandise which is the
subject of entry 110-xxxx6062 was exported from March 1, 1994 through
June 28, 1994, and the merchandise which is the subject of entry
110-xxxx6088 was exported from January 11, 1994 through July 12, 1994.
For entry 110-xxxx6088, three exportations took place prior to February
5, 1994. Application of the corrected appearing in factors to the two
drawback entries and the calculations on the chronological summary of
exports results in an increase in drawback claimed for each of the two
entries.

**ISSUE:**

Whether the liquidation of a drawback claim with no drawback allowed,
precludes a subsequent drawback claim in which the basis of drawback is
the same exported merchandise as for the previously liquidated drawback
claim for which no drawback was allowed.

**LAW AND ANALYSIS:**

Initially, we note that the protest was timely filed under the statutory
and regulatory provisions for protests ([see]{.underline} 19 U.S.C.
§1514 and 19 CFR Part 174). We note that the refusal to pay a claim for
drawback is a protestable issue ([see]{.underline} 19 U.S.C.
§1514(a)(6)).

This protest involves drawback under 19 U.S.C. §1313(b). Section
1313(b), often called the substitution manufacturing drawback law,
provides that if imported duty-paid merchandise and any other
merchandise (whether imported or domestic) of the same kind and quality
are used within three years of the receipt of the imported merchandise
in the manufacture or production of articles by the manufacturer or
producer of the articles and articles manufactured or produced from
either the imported duty-paid merchandise or other merchandise, or any
combination thereof, are exported or destroyed under Customs
supervision, 99 percent of the duties on the imported duty-paid
merchandise shall be refunded as drawback, provided that none of the
articles were used prior to the exportation or destruction, even if none
of the imported merchandise was actually used in the manufacture or
production of the exported or destroyed articles. Under section 1313(i),
no drawback may be allowed under section 1313 unless the completed
article is exported within five years after the importation of the
imported merchandise, and under section 1313(r), the drawback entry must
be filed within three years of the exportation or destruction of the
merchandise.

The drawback statute was substantively amended by section 632, title VI
‑ Customs Modernization, Pub. L. No. 103‑182, the North American Free
Trade Agreement Implementation (\"NAFTA\") Act (107 Stat. 2057), enacted
December 8, 1993. Title VI of Public Law 103‑182 took effect on the date
of enactment of the Act (section 692 of the Act). According to the
applicable legislative history the amendments to the drawback law (19
U.S.C. §1313) are applicable to any drawback entry made on or after the
date of enactment as well as to any drawback entry made before the date
of enactment if the liquidation of the entry is not final on the date of
enactment (H. Report 103‑361, 103d Cong., 1st Sess., 132 (1993);
[see]{.underline} [also]{.underline} provisions in the predecessors to
title VI of the Act; H.R. 700, 103d Cong., 1st Sess., section 202(b); S.
106, 103d Cong., 1st Sess., section 202(b); and H.R. 5100, 102d Cong.,
2d Sess., section 232(b)). The Customs Regulations were revised on March
5, 1998 to implement the amended statutes.

The drawback statute prohibits multiple drawback claims on the basis of
the same exports. Under 19 U.S.C. §1313(v), \"\[m\]erchandise that is
exported or destroyed to satisfy any claim for drawback shall not be the
basis of any other claim for drawback.\" The provision was added at the
time the statute was amended. The protestant takes the position that
section 1313(v) does not preclude a drawback entry based upon an
exportation upon which a prior drawback entry was based, if that entry
was liquidated without the allowance of any drawback. The protestant
argues that the purpose of section 1313(v) is \"to prohibit two
successful drawback claims covering the same merchandise, under which
more than 99 percent of the duties paid with respect to that same
merchandise might otherwise be refunded in the absence of such a
prohibition.\" The protestant takes the position that the claims that
were denied were not satisfied.

The statute does not provide any guidance as to what is meant by \"to
satisfy\". In construction of a statute, the "starting point must be the
language employed by Congress." [American Tobacco Company v.
Patterson]{.underline}, 456 U.S. 63, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 1537, 71 L.Ed.2d
748 (1982) (quoting [Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.]{.underline}, 442 U.S.
330, 337, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2330, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979)). A statute's words
must be given their ordinary, commonly accepted meaning. [MacDonald v.
General Motors Corporation]{.underline}, 784 F.Supp. 486, 493 (M.D.
Tenn. 1992); [American Tobacco Company]{.underline},
[supra]{.underline}, 102 S.Ct. at 1537 ("the legislative purpose is
expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used") (quoting [Richards
v. United States]{.underline}, 369 U.S. 1, 9, 82 S.Ct. 585, 591, 7
L.Ed.2d 492 (1962)). If the language is clear and unambiguous, there is
no reason to search for a different meaning. [Akawo, Morimura & Co. v.
United States]{.underline}, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 379, 381, T.D. 35921
(1915). Unless application of the plain meaning of the language results
in a construction that is an anomaly, unjust, absurd or contrary to the
intent of Congress, that meaning must prevail. [United States v. Palm,
Fechteler & Co.]{.underline}, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 1, T.D. 33195 (1913);
[United States v. The best Foods, Inc.]{.underline}, 47 CCPA 163, C.A.D.
751 (1960); [International Expediters, Inc. et al. v. United
States]{.underline}, 38 Cust. Ct. 230, C.D. 1868 (1957).

The word \"satisfy\" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:

> To answer or discharge, as a claim, debt, legal demand or the
> like\....To comply actually and fully with a demand; to extinguish, by
> payment or performance.

[Id]{.underline}. 1205 (5th ed. 1979).

It appears in this case that clearly, the first claims for drawback were
not satisfied, as no drawback was paid. This is consistent with the
legislative history of the statute. With respect to the addition of
section 1313(v), the legislative history states that the section
\"provides that only one drawback claim per exportation or destruction
of goods would be allowed.\" (H. Report 103‑361, 103d Cong., 1st Sess.,
130). The definition of \"allow\" in Black's Law Dictionary is as
follows:

> The word has no rigid or precise meaning, its import varying according
> to circumstances or context in connection with which it is used. It
> may mean to bestow or assign to any one as his right or due. To
> approve of, accept as true, admit, concede, adopt, or fix. To grant
> something as a deduction or an addition; to abate or deduct; as, to
> allow a sum for leakage. \[citation omitted\] To sanction, either
> directly or indirectly, as opposed to merely suffering a thing to be
> done; to acquiesce in; to suffer; to tolerate.

[Id]{.underline}., at 70. From the legislative history then, it is
apparent that the intent of Congress was not to restrict the number of
times a \"claim\" per exportation was filed, but that only one claim per
exportation could be \"approved\" or paid.

In support of its position the protestant cites HQ 224815, dated April
11, 1994. In HQ 224815, an importer filed a drawback entry and
subsequently discovered that two importations had been designated in
error. The importer requested that Customs deny the claim and accept an
\"amended\" claim, which designated another importation for the two
erroneously designated importations. In both claims, the exportations
were the same. The first claim was liquidated with no drawback because
the second claim was based on the same exportations. The second claim
was untimely filed, as the exportations occurred more than three years
prior to the date of filing of that entry. The liquidation of the first
drawback claim was protested. In HQ 224815, Customs instructed the field
to deny drawback under the second claim as it was untimely, and Customs
partially granted the protest and allowed drawback under the first
entry, as to the correctly designated importation, and disallowed
drawback as to the incorrectly designated importations.

The protestant takes the position that HQ 224815 supports the protest
because Customs allowed one entry (at least in part), although another
entry had been filed relating to the same exported merchandise. At most,
HQ 224815 supports the position that the filing of an untimely second
claim does not preclude drawback under a prior claim, moreover, section
1313(v), was not discussed in the decision.

In addition, the protestant cites [E. Fucini & Co., Inc. v. United
States]{.underline}, 4 Cust. Ct. 174, C.D. 317 (1940); and [718 Fifth
Ave. Corp. v. United States]{.underline}, 14 CIT 403, 741 F. Supp. 1577
(1990), in support of the position that merchandise may be the subject
of a drawback claim, although the same merchandise was also the subject
of a previous claim that was denied and liquidated with no drawback. We
find the cited cases inapplicable as they were decided prior to the
enactment of section 1313(v).

As the first claims, nos. C18-xxxx0163, C18-xxxx0171, C18-xxxx0148 and
C18-xxxx0189, were liquidated and were not amended, but instead a second
set of claims, nos. 110-xxxx6070, 110-xxxx6047, 110-xxxx6088 and
110-xxxx6062, were filed, the restriction in 19 CFR 191.52(c), which
provides that \"liquidated drawback entries may not be amended; however,
they may be protested\....\", is not applicable.

As to the alleged errors in the appearing in factors for the
orange-strawberry-peach base to Japan and resultant revision in the
amount of drawback claimed, we must consider whether the revision is a
timely amendment of the second claims. Under 19 U.S.C. §1313(r)(1), as
added by section 232 of Public Law 103-182 (and effective as to this
protest):

> A drawback entry and all documents necessary to complete a drawback
> claim, including those issued by the Customs Service, shall be filed
> or applied for, as applicable, within 3 years after the date of
> exportation or destruction of the articles on which drawback is
> claimed\.... Claims not completed within the 3-year period shall be
> considered abandoned. No extension will be granted unless it is
> established that the Customs Service was responsible for the untimely
> filing.

House Report 103-361 ([supra]{.underline}, at p. 130) explains this
provision as \"set\[ting\] a period of 3 years from the date of
exportation or destruction in which to file a complete claim.\" This
provision is implemented by Customs Regulations 191.51 -191.53. Customs
Regulations 191.52(c), provides that amendments to drawback entries
which have not been liquidated must be made within 3 years of the date
of exportation or destruction of the articles which are the subject of
the original drawback entries. A drawback claim may however be perfected
after the three years have passed. The examples of perfections, provided
in section 191.52(b), consist of the submission of documents supporting
elements of the drawback claim that have already been set forth, not
changes to the existing claim.

In our interpretation of the prior regulations pertaining to complete
claims and amendments, 19 CFR 191.61 and 19 CFR 191.64, we have taken
the position that to be complete, the designated imports and the exports
upon which a drawback claim is based must be included in a drawback
claim. We have ruled that a claim may not be amended by changing the
scope of the claim after the expiration of the 3‑year period. We find
that changing the basis on which drawback is claimed and the amount
claimed, is a change in the scope of the claim, is not simply the
submission of supporting evidence, and therefore is an untimely
amendment of the claim, if done more than three years after the date of
exportation or destruction. In this case, February 5, 1997, the earliest
date on which Customs was allegedly notified of the errors in the
appearing in factors, occurred more than three years after three of the
exportations which are the subject of entry 110-xxxx6088. Therefore the
amendment of the amount of drawback claimed is *prima facie* untimely as
to those three exportations. However, as the notice regarding the error
was allegedly provided to Customs within three years of the remaining
exportations for entry 110-xxxx6088, and for all of the exportations in
entry 110-xxxx6062, the recalculated appearing in factor and resultant
increase in drawback could have been a timely amendment of the claims.
However, there is no evidence that the amount claimed was actually
revised, or that notice of revised calculations of the summaries of
exports was provided to Customs prior to the liquidation of the entries
on February 7, 1997. Notice of the revised calculations or amount
claimed given to Customs after the liquidation of the drawback entries,
is an amendment precluded under 19 CFR 191.52(c). Therefore the
amendment of the claims is untimely as to both claims, as to all of the
exports.

The protestant has requested that Customs treat the mathematical error
in the appearing in factor as a clerical error under 19 U.S.C. §1520(c),
or in the alternative that Customs treat the erroneous computation an
\"alternative claim\" or \"additional grounds or argument\" with respect
to the protest under 19 CFR 174.28. The computation error was brought to
Customs attention by telephone on February 5, 1997 and by a letter dated
February 6, 1997. Both of these dates are prior to February 7, 1997, the
date of liquidation of the subject entries, and relief under section
1520(c) is available only for claims made within one year **after** the
date of liquidation. Therefore, the protestant's notice of a request
that the error be treated under 19 U.S.C. §1520(c) was premature. There
is no evidence regarding the date the February 6, 1997 letter was
received by Customs, or whether it was received by Customs, therefore
there is no evidence that notice of the error was received **after** the
liquidation of the entries. Moreover, section 1520(c)(1) requires that
the error be adverse to the importer. The drawback claimant is not the
importer. [See]{.underline} HQ 227364, dated January 11, 1999. The
correction of the error was not raised in the protest until April 7,
1998, over 90 days from the date of the protested liquidation.

The amendment of a protest is provided for in 19 U.S.C. §1514(c)(1):

> \[a\] protest may be amended, under the regulations prescribed by the
> Secretary, to set forth objections as to a decision or
> decisions\...which were not the subject of the original protest, in
> the form and manner prescribed for a protest, any time prior to the
> expiration of the time in which such protest could have been filed
> under this section\....

The above statute is implemented by 19 CFR 174.14(a), which allows a
protest to be amended at any time prior to the expiration of the 90-day
period within which such protest may be filed, in accordance with 19 CFR
174.12(e) (*i.e.*, in this case, within 90 days after liquidation of the
entries), to include additional claims on the same issue protested or to
challenge an additional administrative decision relating to the same
category of merchandise. Beyond the 90-day period, 19 CFR 174.28
provides that a protestant may submit alternative claims, and additional
grounds or arguments with respect to any decision which is the subject
of a valid protest.

Before we may consider the error in calculation of the appearing in
factor and the increase in the amount of drawback that is claimed, we
must determine whether the calculation error argument raised is an
amendment to the protest, or an alternative claim or additional ground
or argument with respect to the decision which is the subject of the
instant protest. The protest does not raise the issue of the amount of
drawback claimed, prior to the April 7, 1998 submission, and we find
that the calculation error is an additional claim on the same issue
protested, and is [not]{.underline} an alternative claim or additional
argument or grounds with respect to the decision protested. Accordingly,
the notice regarding the error in computation is untimely under 19 CFR
174.14 and, as such, may not be entertained pursuant to 19 CFR 174.28,
and the protestant is not entitled to the additional drawback for the
entries in question.

Before we can determine that drawback should be allowed in this case, we
must make the determination that the protestant otherwise qualifies for
drawback under 19 U.S.C. §1313(b).

Based on the records submitted and included with the protest, and ACS,
we conclude that in three of the four drawback entries, the imported
designated merchandise was used within three years of the receipt of the
imported merchandise, in the production of articles. The use date is
provided on the drawback entries. However, according to the drawback
entry, in entry 110-xxxx6070, the imported designated merchandise was
received and delivered on September 2 and 3, 1993, which is prior to its
withdrawal from warehouse. The discrepancy in dates indicates that
either the information on the Certificate of Delivery is incorrect or
that the warehouse/consumption entry is incorrectly identified. Without
a clarification of the discrepancy, no drawback can be allowed on this
claim, as the discrepancy in the dates raises a question with regard to
the accuracy of the designated entry. No new import or imports may be
designated, as more than three years have passed since the exportation
of the merchandise, and the drawback entry has been liquidated. We also
find that the exported articles were produced within three years of the
date of receipt of the designated merchandise by the protestant, based
on the information contained in the drum manifests attached to the
invoices for the exported articles, in our randomly selected exports.
Also, according to the export summary, the drawback entries, and
supporting documentation, the exported articles were exported within
five years of the importation of the designated merchandise, and such
exportation is documented. We find that based on the documentation
submitted, the protestant has met the statutory and regulatory
requirements for drawback (with the exception of entry 110-xxxx6070).
Please note that our review of the claims did not include an audit or
review of any inventory records, or verification of the
appearing-in-factors.

There are some procedural matters, that while they are not sufficient
grounds to deny drawback, may warrant a review for purposes of 19 U.S.C.
§1593a, or a general review of compliance with the drawback regulations
and the drawback ruling. In this case, the drawback ruling provides that
the drawback entries will be filed in Miami, Florida, however, the
subject drawback entries were filed in San Francisco, California, and
Customs was not notified of any change in the drawback office where
claims will be filed, as required under the current regulations, 19 CFR
191.8(g)(2)(iii).

**HOLDING:**

The liquidation of a drawback claim with no drawback allowed, does not
preclude a subsequent drawback claim in which the basis of drawback is
the same exported merchandise as for the previously liquidated drawback
claim for which no drawback was allowed. The protestant's attempted
correction of the appearing in factor is an untimely amendment to the
protest, and; therefore, the protest should be denied to the extent
additional drawback is claimed due to the error. With the exception of
entry 110-xxxx6070, the claims otherwise meet the statutory and
regulatory drawback requirements, and the protest should be granted as
to those entries. As to entry 110-xxxx6070, the protest should be
denied, unless the protestant provides satisfactory evidence which shows
a correct date of receipt and use of the designated merchandise on the
warehouse entry 032-xxxx0306, in accordance with the statute.

The protest should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In accordance
with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550‑065, dated August
4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to mail this
decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later
than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the
entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished
prior to mailing the decision.

Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Regulations and
Rulings will make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to
the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at
www.customs.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other
methods of public distribution.

Sincerely,

John Durant

Director

Commercial Rulings Division

[^1]: According to ACS records, entry no. 032-xxxx0306, listed among the
    import entries, is a warehouse entry, and accordingly the \"import
    date\" of \"930901\" represents the date of importation at the first
    U.S. port of unlading and is used as the basis for the calculation
    of the warehousing period.