Question: When evaluating the requirement of whether product was exported in the last three years for 9801.00.10 and the appropriate suffixes, is the three year requirement at the lot control level? In other words, if an importer intended to use 9801.00.1098 for a shipment of widgets would they need to be prepared to show that […]
Question: I’m hoping to get some clarification regarding the eligibility of HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10 for goods returned to the U.S. after being exported temporarily for loan, demonstration, or testing/analysis purposes. Here are the scenarios I’m trying to assess: U.S.-Origin Products (Serialized):Exported to a customer for temporary use (loan/demo/testing), and then returned. No processing or advancement […]
Question: I’ve done extensive research on 9801 and reviewed multiple rulings, and I wanted to ask for your insight on a specific scenario. We have products, both U.S. and foreign origin, that are shipped to customers strictly for demonstration purposes and returned within a year. These are not promotional samples, but actual equipment used to […]
Question: I am seeking clarification on the eligibility requirements under HTSUS 9801.00.10, specifically the condition that goods must be “reimported by or for the account of the person who imported it into, and exported it from, the United States.” Our scenario is as follows: We operate in the clinical trial industry and manage the global […]
Question: What FUNCTION in an organization issues a manufacturer’s affidavit typically (when requested by a company to support its 9801 claim)? Trade Compliance? Manufacturing? Other? Answer 1: Hello, The FUNCTION that typically issues a manufacturer’s affidavit to support a 9801 claim is the Trade Compliance team, often in coordination with Manufacturing or Production teams. While […]
Question: Fact pattern: My US company buys goods from an OEM in Canada. We re-sell/export those goods (as is) to France. When they go bad, France customer sends them back to us in the US, and we then export them to the vendor in Canada for repair. Canada repairs, sends back to me in US […]
Question: We have several tools, classified in 8479.89, that we move back and forth between the US and Canada. The country of origin of the tools is Canada. The tools were imported into the US and exported back to Canada, within the last year. When I bring these tools back to the US, can they […]
Question: I have a case where an Asian Air force returned an ECCN 9A610.x part prior to our advising them on using 9801.00.10. They marked the package “returned for repair” but if they used the tariff code for the part and not 9801.00.10 does that mean we cannot use 9801.10.000 (Schedule B) for the export […]
Question: Question for the community. Original export was a 9A610.f piece of capital equipment exported last year on a BIS license to an Asian Air Force. Now we have to bring back to the USA an ECCN 9A610.x component from that equipment for repair-and-return via license exception RPL (EAR 740.10). Do you recommend using HTS 9801.00.1012 […]
Question: We buy product from a domestic supplier that imports the product from China and they pay the duties/tariffs, etc. This cost is passed to us when we purchase the product. We ship the product to various countries around the globe for temporary lease agreements. When the product is returned, can we use the 98010020 […]
Question: We will be producing, under contract, sizing vests for ballistic carrier fitting, in El Salvador. They are DR-CAFTA qualified goods. One of the options we are considering is the following: Import into the US from EL Salvador Transport for export to our IMMEX operation in Tijuana, MX. Our IMMEX operation will produce non-ballistic (dummy) […]
Question: Hello ICPA community, My company’s goods, originally from the US and exported to a foreign country, are now returning to the US. For internal reasons, we lack the export documents needed to import them under tariff number 9801 (US goods returned), so we have not used this provision. I want to propose that, instead […]
