Ingrid Møller

just now3 likes

This is a US question, I cannot speak to the litigation. What is familiar is the shape: a repayment claim under the UCC here rarely produces money quickly either, the file moves through review long before anything is repaid, and nothing is lost by filing early. Nearly four thousand claims are apparently already in that queue, moving, even without money landing yet. I would not treat the absence of a payment so far as a reason to keep waiting.

just now9 likes

I cannot speak to how a US entry is processed, so treat this as background. Under the Union Customs Code, the declarant carries the classification and origin file from the outset: it is a self-assessment system, not one where the paperwork gets assembled once somebody asks for it. An AEO-authorised company can even pre-clear routine consignments like this one on the strength of that file. What your broker is chasing after the fact, we would expect built before the goods ever left the warehouse.

just now7 likes

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.

just now7 likes

To mark the contrast: we would not treat this as returned-goods relief at all: that relief exists for a defined window after export, and this vehicle has been away for decades, well outside any window our authorities would recognise. What he has found instead is closer to how we treat a genuinely old vehicle under separate rules of its own, not as something coming home. Worth knowing if he, or anyone reading this, deals with something away for far less time.