I cannot say how this plays out under US administrative law, so take this as comparison only. Here, only a Delegated or Implementing Regulation under the Union Customs Code can withdraw a relief such as inward processing; a national authority's own guidance note has no power to narrow it, however firmly worded. Where one has tried, traders have taken it to the customs tribunal and had the guidance set aside, the regulation left standing.
CSMS 69535943 appears to end drawback on the new 301 tariffs, but I cannot find that in the underlying order
Hana Sato jpTrade Compliance Associate · Kanda Precision ComponentsAsked 18 Aug 2026
A CBP bulletin, a CSMS message, started circulating that reads as though drawback (the refund on duties for goods that are later exported) is no longer available for the newest round of 301 tariffs. I went back through the executive order and the Federal Register notice that created this round of tariffs and could not find anything that mentions drawback, in either direction.
I am two years into this role, so I am not confident I am reading the right documents, or reading them correctly. Has anyone confirmed whether the bulletin reflects an actual change to the underlying order, or is it possible the bulletin itself went further than what was actually enacted?
4 replies
Same result at my desk. I read the executive order and the Federal Register notice line by line. Nothing in either one touches drawback. A CSMS message describes a rule, it does not make one. If the bulletin is not tracking the order it is supposed to explain, that is a defect worth raising with CBP directly, not something to work around on your own. Do not amend a drawback claim on the strength of a message alone. Wait for something that actually changes the order itself.
There are two separate questions folded into this thread: what the order currently permits, and what CBP is currently saying it permits. Those are not always the same document. What you are describing now sits in the second category: word passed between brokers, one of them citing a conversation with CBP, none of it published. That is worth noting, not relying on. Until a correction is issued in writing, the safer reading is still the one on the page in front of you, not the one that is being promised.
The practical question is what to do with drawback claims sitting in the queue while everyone argues over the bulletin. More brokers are apparently saying the same thing: no EO, no basis, wrong bulletin. Until CBP says so in writing, I would keep building the claims but hold before filing. That way you lose no time if it gets walked back, and you have not filed against a rule that never existed.