CBP Says SPI "A" GSP Refunds All Issued, Except for Those that "Failed" Process
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which began processing GSP duty refunds in early December for entries made during the period of January 1, 2011 through November 4, 2011, now states that refunds have been issued for all automatic refund requests (i.e., for entries that were filed duty-paid via ABI with the SPI "A"), except for ones that "failed" this refund process, which are being sent to the ports where entry was made to be manually processed. The target date for CBP completing the refund process for the SPI "A" failed entries is the end of February 2012.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Most SPI "A" Failures Due to Reconciliation, Drawback
CBP officials state that most of the entries that failed the Special Program Indicator (SPI) "A" refund process (and there were quite a few) were either the subject of (1) reconciliation or (2) drawback; however, there may be other reasons that an entry failed the process.
(CBP has stated that ACS reconciliation allows the importer, using reasonable care, to file entry summaries with CBP with the best available information, with the mutual understanding that certain elements, such as the declared value, remain outstanding. At a later date, when the specifics have been determined, the importer files a Reconciliation which provides the final and correct information. The Reconciliation is then liquidated, with a single bill or refund, as appropriate. CBP information available here.
Customs has stated that importers may not use the SPI "A'' if they intend to later claim drawback. Use of the SPI "A'' is the importer's indication that he wishes to receive a refund if the GSP is renewed retroactively. To claim both this refund and drawback would be to request a refund in excess of duties actually deposited. Importers who are unsure as to whether they will claim drawback should not use the SPI "A'' process. July 5, 1995 Federal Register notice on the agency's GSP refund policy available here.)
Filers Still Have Until April 18 to File Other GSP Refund Requests
For those that filed non-ABI, or used the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) but without an SPI "A", requests for retroactive Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) duty refunds are due by April 18, 2012, and there is no protest period after this date. CBP has previously stated that:
ACE summaries with No SPI "A" must use PSC. For ACE entry summaries where no SPI "A" was transmitted, retroactive GSP claims must be made via post-summary correction, where applicable, i.e., if the entry meets the time requirements for PSC filing. (CBP has previously stated that PSCs can only be submitted within 270 days of the date that CBP accepted the entry. As the GSP program expired on December 31, 2010, some entries made in early 2011 may be outside the PSC time window.)
All other GSP refund requests. GSP refund requests for all other entry summaries (e.g., warehouse withdrawals, change liquidations, re-liquidations, suspended entry summaries, etc.) where no SPI "A" was transmitted will be processed in accordance with CBP's normal liquidation or re-liquidation procedures. Claims may be made via post-entry amendment (PEA) or protest, as long as they meet the applicable time requirements. Any amounts owed by the U.S. pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry will be paid without interest.CBP has also stated that importers should monitor their refunds to ensure the receipt of applicable duties.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11122141 for summary stating that CBP expected all SPI "A" GSP refunds to be issued by the end of February 2012.)
* The first paragraph was amended on 03/07/12 to state that the target date for CBP's completion of the refund process for the SPI "A" failed entries was end of February, and not mid-March. The change to the article was based on new information.