Central Soya Co., Inc. v. The United States

Federal Circuit

Central Soya Co., Inc. v. The United States

953 F.2d 630, 13 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2137, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 957, 1992 WL 11078

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1992

Docket91-1324

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 953 F.2d 630 (Central Soya Co., Inc. v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Soya Co., Inc. v. The United States, 953 F.2d 630, 13 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2137, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 957, 1992 WL 11078 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (1988), appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade ordering the United States Customs Service to approve the application of Central Soya Co., Inc. (Central Soya) for drawback of the duty it had paid on imported crude soybean oil. Central Soya sold domestic crude soybean oil, fungible with its imported crude soybean oil, to a company that then exported the domestic oil. After the sale, Central Soya applied for a refund of its previously-paid duty, known as a “substitution same condition drawback.” The Customs Service denied Central Soya’s drawback claim solely because Central Soya was not the exporter of the substituted fungible merchandise. The Court of International Trade held that the Customs Service violated its statutory authority when it denied Central Soya’s drawback claim because 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(2) does not require that the claimant be the exporter of the substituted merchandise. Central Soya Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F.Supp. 133, 141 (Ct.Int’l Trade 1991).

For the reasons set forth in the published opinion of the Court of International Trade, which we hereby adopt, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (1988), appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade ordering the United States Customs Service to approve the application of Central Soya Co., Inc. (Central Soya) for drawback of the duty it had paid on imported crude soybean oil. Central Soya sold domestic crude soybean oil, fungible with its imported crude soybean oil, to a company that then exported the domestic oil. After the sale, Central Soya applied for a refund of its previously-paid duty, known as a “substitution same condition drawback.” The Customs Service denied Central Soya’s drawback claim solely because Central Soya was not the exporter of the substituted fungible merchandise. The Court of International Trade held that the Customs Service violated its statutory authority when it denied Central Soya’s drawback claim because 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(2) does not require that the claimant be the exporter of the substituted merchandise. Central Soya Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F.Supp. 133, 141 (Ct.Int’l Trade 1991).

For the reasons set forth in the published opinion of the Court of International Trade, which we hereby adopt, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

953 F.2d 630, 13 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2137, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 957, 1992 WL 11078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-soya-co-inc-v-the-united-states-cafc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack