[WPRT 105-6]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


105th Congress                                                    WMCP:
1st Session                 COMMITTEE PRINT                       105-6
                                                                       
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               __________

                            WRITTEN COMMENTS

                                   ON

 
 MISCELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS TO TRADE LEGISLATION AND MISCELLANEOUS DUTY 
                            SUSPENSION BILLS





                                     
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                                     
                           DECEMBER 30, 1997

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means by its staff

                               ---------

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 43-686 CC                WASHINGTON : 1997



                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                      BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois            CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California              FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut        BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky                WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California             BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana               JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa                     RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia                 JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania      KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

                     A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

                  Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

                                 ______

                         Subcommittee on Trade

                  PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois, Chairman

BILL THOMAS, California              ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
WALLY HERGER, California
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa


Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public 
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are published in 
electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official 
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both 
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of 
converting between various electronic formats may introduce 
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the 
current publication process and should diminish as the process is 
further refined. The electronic version of the hearing record does not 
include materials which were not submitted in an electronic format. 
These materials are kept on file in the official Committee records.


                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________

                                                                   Page

Advisory of Monday, June 30, 1997, announcing request for written 
  comments on miscellaneous corrections to trade legislation and 
  miscellaneous duty suspension bills............................     1

                                 ______

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #1:
    American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York, 
      NY, statement..............................................    10
    Customs and International Trade Bar Association, New York, 
      NY, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr. and Bernard J. Babb, letter.......    10
    Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, statement...........    12
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #2:
    Customs and International Trade Bar Association, New York, 
      NY, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr. and Bernard J. Babb, letter.......    10
    Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, statement...........    12
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3:
    Aectra Refining & Marketing, Inc., Houston, TX, Anthony J. 
      Voigt, letter..............................................    16
    Ackell, Joseph J., Northville Industries Corp., Melville, NY, 
      letter.....................................................    47
    Adam, Jane, ARCO Products Company, Los Angeles, CA, letter...    18
    American Petroleum Institute, Charles J. DiBona, letter......    17
    ARCO Chemical Company, Newton Square, PA, Clarisse G. 
      McCormick, letter..........................................    18
    ARCO Products Company, Los Angeles, CA, Jane Adam, letter....    18
    Babb, Bernard J., and Rufus E. Jarman, Jr., Customs and 
      International Trade Bar Association, New York, NY, letter..    10
    Bailey, Jim, Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Dallas, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    29
    Basis Clearing, Inc., Houston, TX, Kenneth J. Stockel, letter    19
    Basis Petroleum, Inc., Houston, TX, Georganne Hodges, letter.    20
    Berniard, L.J., III, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    28
    BP Chemicals Inc., Cleveland, OH, Ann Carter, letter.........    20
    BP Oil Company, Cleveland, OH, Kevin M. Carr, letter.........    21
    Cain, Mark, Statoil North America Inc., Stamford, CT, letter.    51
    Cargill/Northeast Petroleum, Beverly, MA, Barb Ducat, letter.    22
    Carr, Kevin M., BP Oil Company, Cleveland, OH, letter........    21
    Carter, Ann, BP Chemicals Inc., Cleveland, OH, letter........    20
    Chevron Chemical Company, Houston, TX, Robert E. Kennedy, 
      letter.....................................................    22
    Chevron Products Company, Concord, CA, Pat E. Yarrington, 
      letter.....................................................    23
    CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, OK, Ezra C. Hunt, letter.    24
    Clawson, James B., JBC International, letter.................    37
    Conoco Inc., Ponca City, OK, James A. McDonald, letter.......    24
    Customs and International Trade Bar Association, New York, 
      NY, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr. and Bernard J. Babb, letter.......    10
    Dalsin, Michelle S., Northwest Airlines, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 
      letter.....................................................    47
    Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Thomas J. Roeck, Jr., 
      letter.....................................................    25
    Denninger, Edward P., Sr., J.G. Eberlein & Co., Inc., New 
      York, NY, letter...........................................    38
    Der Hagopian, David J., Entec Polymers, Inc., Maitland, FL, 
      letter.....................................................    28
    DiBona, Charles J., American Petroleum Institute, letter.....    17
    Dow Chemical Company, Lake Jackson, TX, John D. Williams, 
      Jr., letter................................................    26
    Ducat, Barb, Cargill/Northeast Petroleum, Beverly, MA, letter    22
    Dugan, Michael, National Customs Brokers & Forwarders 
      Association of America, letter.............................    45
    E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE, Janet S. 
      Kempf, letter..............................................    27
    Enron Corp., E. Joseph Hillings, letter......................    27
    Entec Polymers, Inc., Maitland, FL, David J. Der Hagopian, 
      letter.....................................................    28
    Exxon Company, U.S.A., Houston, TX, L.J. Berniard III, letter    28
    Faneuil, Edward J., Global Petroleum Corp., Waltham, MA, 
      letter.....................................................    32
    Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Dallas, TX, Jim Bailey, letter    29
    Galaxy Energy (U.S.A.), Inc., Houston, TX, Paul A. Strong, 
      letter.....................................................    30
    George E. Warren Corporation, Vero Beach, FL, Jonathan W. 
      Taylor, letter.............................................    30
    Georgia Gulf Corporation, Plaquemine, LA, Janice Owens, 
      letter.....................................................    31
    Global Petroleum Corp., Waltham, MA, Edward J. Faneuil, 
      letter.....................................................    32
    Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc., Katy, TX, Bobby Waid, 
      letter.....................................................    32
    Hattunen, Mauri, Neste Oy, Houston, TX, letter...............    46
    Hillings, E. Joseph, Enron Corp., letter.....................    27
    Hirako, Hideaki, ITOCHU International, Inc., Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    37
    H. Muehlstein & Company, Inc., Norwalk, CT, Jerry J. 
      Johnston, letter...........................................    33
    Hodges, Georganne, Basis Petroleum, Inc., Houston, TX, letter    20
    Holden, Wayne, NOVA Chemicals Inc., Houston, TX, letter......    48
    Houston Marine Services, Inc., Houston, TX, James S. Riley, 
      Jr., letter................................................    34
    Hunt, Ezra C., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, OK, letter    24
    Hurwitz, Geoffrey B., Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, 
      PA, letter.................................................    50
    Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association, statement...    34
    ITOCHU International, Inc., Houston, TX, Hideaki Hirako, 
      letter.....................................................    37
    Ivy, Kim M., Matrix Marine Fuels, L.L.C., Houston, TX, letter    41
    Jarman, Rufus E., Jr., and Bernard J. Babb, Customs and 
      International Trade Bar Association, New York, NY, letter..    10
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    J.G. Eberlein & Co., Inc., New York, NY, Edward P. Denninger, 
      Sr., letter................................................    38
    J.M. Rodgers Co., Inc., New York, NY, Frank McCarthy, letter.    39
    Johnston, Jerry J., H. Muehlstein & Company, Inc., Norwalk, 
      CT, letter.................................................    33
    Keating, James J., Petro-Diamond Incorporated, Irvine, CA, 
      letter.....................................................    49
    Kempf, Janet S., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 
      Wilmington, DE, letter.....................................    27
    Kennedy, Robert E., Chevron Chemical Company, Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    22
    Lowell, Richard E., MIECO Inc., Long Beach, CA, letter.......    42
    Lyondell Petrochemical Company, Houston, TX, P. Beth 
      McCutcheon, letter.........................................    40
    Magnuson, William J., Jr., Sterling Chemicals, Inc., Houston, 
      TX, letter.................................................    52
    MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc., Anchorage, AK, Randy M. 
      Newcomer, letter...........................................    41
    Matrix Marine Fuels, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Kim M. Ivy, letter.    41
    McCarthy, Frank, J.M. Rodgers Co., Inc., New York, NY, letter    39
    McCormick, Clarisse G., ARCO Chemical Company, Newton Square, 
      PA, letter.................................................    18
    McCutcheon, P. Beth, Lyondell Petrochemical Company, Houston, 
      TX, letter.................................................    40
    McDonald, James A., Conoco Inc., Ponca City, OK, letter......    24
    MIECO Inc., Long Beach, CA, Richard E. Lowell, letter........    42
    Millennium Petrochemicals Inc., Cincinnati, OH, Henley R. 
      Webb, letter...............................................    43
    Montell USA, Inc., Wilmington, DE, Randall W. Simpson, letter    43
    National Council on International Trade Development, Ray 
      Shaw, letter...............................................    44
    National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, 
      Michael Dugan, letter......................................    45
    Neste Oy, Houston, TX, Mauri Hattunen, letter................    46
    Newcomer, Randy M., MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc., Anchorage, 
      AK, letter.................................................    41
    Northville Industries Corp., Melville, NY, Joseph J. Ackell, 
      letter.....................................................    47
    Northwest Airlines, Inc., St. Paul, MN, Michelle S. Dalsin, 
      letter.....................................................    47
    NOVA Chemicals Inc., Houston, TX, Wayne Holden, letter.......    48
    O'Toole, Joseph W., Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, 
      OK, letter.................................................    49
    Owens, Janice, Georgia Gulf Corporation, Plaquemine, LA, 
      letter.....................................................    31
    Palumbo, Michael J., Trans World Airlines, Inc., St. Louis, 
      MO, letter.................................................    53
    Petro-Diamond Incorporated, Irvine, CA, James J. Keating, 
      letter.....................................................    49
    Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, OK, Joseph W. 
      O'Toole, letter............................................    49
    Riley, James S., Jr., Houston Marine Services, Inc., Houston, 
      TX, letter.................................................    34
    Roeck, Thomas J., Jr., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 
      letter.....................................................    25
    Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, PA, Geoffrey B. Hurwitz, 
      letter.....................................................    50
    Rossi, Roberta M., Valero Refining Company, Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    54
    Shaw, Ray, National Council on International Trade 
      Development, letter........................................    44
    Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX, Steven C. Stryker, letter....    51
    Simpson, Randall W., Montell USA, Inc., Wilmington, DE, 
      letter.....................................................    43
    Sines, James V., United Airlines, Chicago, IL, letter........    54
    Statoil North America Inc., Stamford, CT, Mark Cain, letter..    51
    Sterling Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX, William J. Magnuson, 
      Jr., letter................................................    52
    Stockel, Kenneth J., Basis Clearing, Inc., Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    19
    Strong, Paul A., Galaxy Energy (U.S.A.), Inc., Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    30
    Stryker, Steven C., Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX, letter...    51
    Taylor, Jonathan W., George E. Warren Corporation, Vero 
      Beach, FL, letter..........................................    30
    Thompson, J.W., Venture Coke Company L.L.C., Houston, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    55
    Trans World Airlines, Inc., St. Louis, MO, Michael J. 
      Palumbo, letter............................................    53
    Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, San Antonio, TX, W. 
      Reed Williams, letter......................................    53
    United Airlines, Chicago, IL, James V. Sines, letter.........    54
    Valero Refining Company, Houston, TX, Roberta M. Rossi, 
      letter.....................................................    54
    Venture Coke Company L.L.C., Houston, TX, J.W. Thompson, 
      letter.....................................................    55
    Voigt, Anthony J., Aectra Refining & Marketing, Inc., 
      Houston, TX, letter........................................    16
    Waid, Bobby, Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc., Katy, TX, 
      letter.....................................................    32
    Webb, Henley R., Millennium Petrochemicals Inc., Cincinnati, 
      OH, letter.................................................    43
    Williams, John D., Jr., Dow Chemical Company, Lake Jackson, 
      TX, letter.................................................    26
    Williams, W. Reed, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, San 
      Antonio, TX, letter........................................    53
    Yarrington, Pat E., Chevron Products Company, Concord, CA, 
      letter.....................................................    23
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #4:
    BASF Corporation, Mount Olive, NJ, Richard J. Salamone, 
      letter.....................................................    56
    Customs and International Trade Bar Association, New York, 
      NY, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr. and Bernard J. Babb, letter.......    10
    Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc., Katy, TX, Bobby Waid, 
      letter.....................................................    57
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    J.G. Eberlein & Co., Inc., New York, NY, Edward P. Denninger, 
      Sr., letter................................................    38
    J.M. Rodgers Co., Inc., New York, NY, Frank McCarthy, letter.    39
    National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, 
      Michael Dugan, letter......................................    45
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #5:
    IMS Worldwide, Inc., Friendswood, TX, statement..............    58
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    Massachusetts Port Authority, Ralph F. Cox, letter...........    59
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #6:
    Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc., Jamaica, NY:
        Peter J. Cathey, letter..................................    60
        Mario Scorcia, letter....................................    62
    Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc., Chicago Station, Schiller 
      Park, IL, Celeste Moran, letter............................    62
    Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc., Detroit Station, Romulus, MI, 
      Robert Papelian, letter....................................    63
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #7:
    Air Courier Conference of America, Falls Church, VA, Evelyn 
      M. Suarez, statement.......................................    64
    Air Transport Association, William Van Deventer, statement...    65
    American Automobile Manufacturers Association, statement.....    68
    American Watch Association, Coalition to Preserve the 
      Integrity of American Trademarks, and the International 
      Anticounterfeiting Coalition; Charles E. Buffon, Laurie C. 
      Self, John S. Bliss, and Emilio G. Collado, joint letter 
      and attachments............................................    70
    Customs and International Trade Bar Association, New York, 
      NY, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr. and Bernard J. Babb, letter.......    10
    Eastman Kodak Company, statement and attachments.............    77
    International Trademark Association, David Stimson, letter...    83
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, statement...........    12
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #8:
    American Automobile Manufacturers Association, statement.....    68
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    Joint Industry Group, statement..............................    85
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #9:
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    Joint Industry Group, statement..............................    85
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #10:
    American Automobile Manufacturers Association, statement.....    68
    JBC International, James B. Clawson, letter..................    37
    Joint Industry Group, statement..............................    85
    Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, statement...........    12
Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #11:
    American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York, 
      NY, statement..............................................    10
    Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, statement...........    12
H.R. 1097: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1214: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1304: Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc., Mt. Holly Springs, PA, 
  Kelly Rennels, letter..........................................    89
H.R. 1548: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1606: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1607: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1677: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1678: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1742:
    Hoechst Corporation, W. Anthony Shaw, letter.................    91
    ICF Industries, Inc., New York, NY, statement and attachment.    91
    National Knitwear & Sportswear Association, New York, NY, 
      Seth M. Bodner, letter.....................................    97
    North American Corporation, Elizabethton, TN, Charles K. 
      Green, letter..............................................    98
H.R. 1793: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1852: Hoechst Corporation, W. Anthony Shaw, letter..........   100
H.R. 1875:
    Chocolate Manufacturers Association and National 
      Confectioners Association, McLean, VA, Lawrence T. Graham, 
      joint letter...............................................   101
    Golden Peanut Company, Alpharetta, GA, James W. Dorsett, 
      statement..................................................   102
H.R. 1876: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1879: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1882: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1886: Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., Middlebury, CT, James 
  B. Clawson, letter.............................................   103
H.R. 1887: Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., Middlebury, CT, James 
  B. Clawson, letter.............................................   104
H.R. 1888:
    Hoechst Corporation, W. Anthony Shaw, letter.................    91
    ICF Industries, Inc., New York, NY, statement and attachment.    91
    National Knitwear & Sportswear Association, New York, NY, 
      Seth M. Bodner, letter.....................................    97
    North American Corporation, Elizabethton, TN, Charles K. 
      Green, letter..............................................    98
H.R. 1889:
    K2 Corporation, Vashon, WA, statement........................   105
    Profiles, Inc., Ware, MA, Robert L. Brock, statement.........   107
H.R. 1890: K2 Corporation, Vashon, WA, statement.................   105
H.R. 1893: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1897: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1907: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1919: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1920: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1921: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1922: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1923: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1924: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1925: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1926: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1927: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1928: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1929: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1930: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1931: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1932: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1933: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1934: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1935: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1936: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1937: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1938: Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, Tarrytown, NY, 
  Michelle F. Forte, letter......................................   111
H.R. 1940: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1945:
    Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Findlay, OH, statement.........   112
    Dunlop Tire Corporation, Buffalo, NY, Robert J. Schrecongost, 
      statement..................................................   112
    Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, OH, statement.........   113
H.R. 1947: LTV Steel Company, Inc., Cleveland, OH, Daniel R. 
  Minnick, letter................................................   114
H.R. 1954:
    Hoechst Corporation, W. Anthony Shaw, letter.................    91
    ICF Industries, Inc., New York, NY, statement and attachment.    91
    National Knitwear & Sportswear Association, New York, NY, 
      Seth M. Bodner, letter.....................................    97
    North American Corporation, Elizabethton, TN, Charles K. 
      Green, letter..............................................    98
H.R. 1973: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2041: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2042: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2043: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2044: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2045: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2046: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2047: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2048: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2049: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2058: AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, DE, statement.........   116
H.R. 2059: AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, DE, statement.........   116
H.R. 2060: AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, DE, statement.........   116
      

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                                CONTACT: (202) 225-6649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 30, 1997
No. TR-10

              Crane Announces Request for Written Comments

                    on Miscellaneous Corrections to

                         Trade Legislation and

                  Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

    Congressman Philip M. Crane (R-IL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the 
Subcommittee is requesting written public comments for the record from 
all parties interested in technical corrections to recent trade 
legislation and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
      

BACKGROUND:

      
    During the 104th Congress, a number of technical amendments were 
proposed to facilitate the implementation of the major trade 
legislation passed during the 103rd Congress, including the North 
American Free Trade Agreements Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182] and 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act [P.L. 103-465]. As a result of 
consideration of these proposals and miscellaneous tariff measures, 
Congress passed the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act 
of 1996 [P.L. 104-295], which was signed into law by the President on 
October 11, 1996.
      
    As part of the ongoing process of identifying technical changes to 
improve the efficiency of the trade laws, several proposals have been 
submitted to the Subcommittee by the Administration and the business 
community for possible consideration in future legislation. In 
addition, Members have introduced legislation to provide temporary 
suspension of duty or duty-free treatment for specific products. 
Chairman Crane is requesting submission of written comments on these 
proposed changes to U.S. trade law.
      

PROPOSED MISCELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS:

      
    1. Amend 19 U.S.C. 1515(a) to provide that within 30 days from the 
date an application for further review is filed, the appropriate 
customs officer shall allow or deny the application and, if allowed, 
forward the protest to the customs officer who will be conducting the 
further review.
      
    2. Require the Commissioner of Customs to provide no less than 30 
days public notice for changes in regulations, except to avoid 
excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of the Customs 
Service.
      
    3. Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) was 
amended by the North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA) 
Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182] to provide special accounting and 
attribution rules for drawback on petroleum products. The provision was 
to allow the petroleum industry to account for selected petroleum 
products on a quantitative basis, relieving Customs and industry from 
the problem of ``tracking molecules'' for the attribution of drawback. 
However, Customs current interpretation of 19 U.S.C. (p)(2)(a)(iv) 
relating to substitution drawback for finished petroleum derivatives 
requires companies to track delivery of the actual imported petroleum 
in possession of the exporter, in effect requiring the tracing of 
molecules. The proposed amendment would clarify the original intention 
of the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products 
should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
      
    4. Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) was 
amended by the North American Free Trade Agreements Implementation Act 
[P.L. 103-182] to insert a new subsection (q) allowing drawback on 
packaging materials, where the packaging is ``used'' by filling prior 
to exportation. Customs interprets ``use'' by filling to be limited to 
the manufacturer of the packaging material and that filling may not be 
performed by another company. Customs proposes to reverse or modify 
Headquarters ruling 225658 of January 17, 1995, allowing such 
treatment. This proposed provision would amend section 313(q) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(q)) by inserting a new section for 
drawback eligible packing material filled prior to exportation. The 
proposed provision would provide that packaging materials produced in 
the United States, which are used by the manufacturer or any other 
person for articles which are exported or destroyed shall be eligible 
for a drawback refund of 99 percent of any duty, tax, or fee imposed on 
the importation of materials used to manufacture the packing materials. 
The proposed amendment would provide that U.S.-produced packaging 
material may be ``used'' by the manufacturer or any other person and, 
thus, will remain eligible for drawback payment.
      
    5. Amend section 411 et seq. of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1411 et seq.) relating to the National Customs Automation Program to 
require Customs to establish and implement the means by which foreign-
trade zone admission data can be electronically filed.
      
    6. Amend section 491(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1491(a)) to extend the retention period for International Travel 
Merchandise (ITM) held at Customs-approved storage rooms (CASR) to five 
years, identical to the period for all classes of Customs-approved 
bonded warehouses. ITM consists of in-flight merchandise sold on board 
international air carriers after departure from U.S. Customs territory. 
Presently, ITM is imported to the United States under bond and is moved 
to centralized, Customs-approved bonded warehouses. The merchandise is 
further distributed to CASRs near the airports where it is stored, 
manipulated, and exported under Customs' supervision. The CASRs are 
regulated as if the merchandise were being held ``on dock'' awaiting 
exportation. Prior to the Customs Modernization Act, ITM had been held 
at the CASRs in 90-day increments for up to one year. However, Customs 
believes that, under the terms of a revision provided in the Customs 
Modernization Act relating to unclaimed merchandise in General Order 
warehouses, the maximum period may now be six months. The proposed 
revision would extend the retention period to five years and extend to 
CASRs the same treatment which is given to Customs-approved bonded 
warehouses.
      
    7. Section 431 of the Tariff Act of 1930 outlines the requirements, 
form, and content of manifest information which must be publicly 
disclosed. Section 431(c) outlines the requirements for public 
disclosure of manifest information. On July 2, 1996, the President 
signed the Anticounterfeiting and Consumer Protection Act of 1996 [P.L. 
104-153], which amended section 431(c)(1) to require public disclosure 
of vessel and aircraft manifest information, as well as additional 
requirements as to the content of such information. On October 11, 
1996, the President signed into law the Miscellaneous Trade and 
Technical Corrections Act of 1996 [P.L. 104-295], which amended section 
431(c)(1) to require public disclosure of vessel manifest information 
only, and makes no additions to the law regarding the content of such 
information. Given the potentially conflicting interpretations of these 
laws, legislation may be needed to clarify that the language contained 
in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 
reflects Congressional intent.
      
    8. Amend section 505(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1505(c)) to clarify that Customs must refund interest payable on 
refunds of duty arising from NAFTA claims under 19 U.S.C. 1520(c) for 
the full period from the date of payment to the Government to the date 
of liquidation or reliquidation. Under current law, Customs is required 
to refund interest only for the period from the date of filing the 
claim to the date of reliquidation.
      
    9. Amend section 520(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1520(d)), relating to goods qualifying under NAFTA rules of origin, to 
clarify that merchandise processing fees (MPFs) may be refunded along 
with excess duties if NAFTA-eligibility is proven. Under the NAFTA 
Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182], MPFs are not imposed on goods 
originating in NAFTA countries. To claim a NAFTA preference, an 
importer must provide a valid certificate of origin. In practice, 
certificates of origin are not always available at the time of 
importation. Importers often pay duties and the MPF on a good they know 
is NAFTA-eligible, with the expectation that the MPF will be refunded 
later as an excess duty when NAFTA-eligibility is proven. Customs has 
taken the position that MPFs are not refundable excess duties under 19 
U.S.C. 1520(d).
      
    10. Amend section 514(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1514(a)) to ensure that if an importer is entitled to a NAFTA 
preference, there is a method for obtaining a refund of the duties paid 
at the time of entry. It is a violation of law for an importer to claim 
a NAFTA preference before receiving a valid certificate of origin 
issued by the exporter. Many importers do not have a certificate of 
origin at the time goods are entered, and subsequently file post-entry 
claims when a valid certificate of origin is received. If the entry is 
liquidated before receiving a certificate of origin, importers 
generally protest the liquidation under 19 U.S.C. 1514. This action 
prevents the liquidation from becoming final before the valid NAFTA-
eligibility claim is made. Customs position is that protests under 19 
U.S.C. 1514 are inapplicable to NAFTA claims, that such claims must be 
filed under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) within one year from the date of entry. 
The provision would clarify that importers may use the protest 
procedure under 19 U.S.C. 1514 to claim the NAFTA preference.
      
    11. Amend 19 U.S.C. 2083 and 19 U.S.C. 2071 to eliminate the 
requirement that Customs provide Congress with three annual reports: 
(1) the Violation Estimates Report, which contains estimates on the 
number and extent of violations of trade, customs and illegal drug 
control laws, and the relative incidence of violations estimated among 
the various ports of entries; (2) the Enforcement Strategy Report, 
which outlines a nationally uniform enforcement strategy for dealing 
with violations 90 days after the Violation Estimates Report; and (3) 
the Merchandise Damaged Statistics, which provides statistics on the 
incidence, nature, and extent of damage to merchandise resulting from 
Customs examinations.
      

DUTY SUSPENSION AND DUTY-FREE ENTRY BILLS:

      
    1. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) by inserting a new heading 9902.32.22 for the chemical 
3-acetyloxy)-2-methyl-Benzoic acid (CAS No. 168899-58-9)(provided for 
in subheading 2916.39.75) used in the production of anti-HIV/anti-AIDS 
drugs, as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2048)
      
    2. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.16 for the chemical (S)-N--[[5-[2-(2-amino-4,6,7,8-
tetrahydro-4-oxo-1H-pyrimido[5,4-b][1,4]thiazin-6-yl)ethyl]-2-
thianyl]carbonyl-L-glutamic acid diethyl ester (CAS No. 177575-19-
8)(provided for in subheading 2930.90.90) used in the production of 
anti-cancer drugs, as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2041)
      
    3. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.20 for the chemical 2-amino-5-bromo-6-methyl-4(1H)-
Quinazolinone (CAS No. 147149-89-1)(provided for in subheading 
2921.51.50) used in the production of anti-cancer drugs, as temporarily 
duty free. (H.R. 2046)
      
    4. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.21 for the chemical 2-amino-6-methyl-5-(4-
pyridinylthio)4(1H)-Quinazolinone (CAS No. 147149-76-6)(provided for in 
subheading 2921.51.50) used in the production of anti-cancer drugs, as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2045)
      
    5. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.20 for 2-Amino-5-Nitrothiazole (CAS No. 121-66-
4)(provided for in subheading 2934.10.90.00) as temporarily duty free. 
(H.R. 1926)
      
    6. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.32 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 2-amino-5-nitro-, 
monosodium salt (CAS No. 30693-53-9)(provided for in subheading 
2921.42.90.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1933)
      
    7. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.34 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 2-amino-5-nitro-, 
monoammonium salt (CAS No. 4346-51-4)(provided for in subheading 
2921.42.90.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1930)
      
    8. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.36 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 2-amino-5-nitro, (CAS No. 
96-75-3)(provided for in subheading 2921.42.90.00) as temporarily duty 
free. (H.R. 1934)
      
    9. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.38 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-(4,5,-dihydro-3-methyl-
5-oxo-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)- (CAS No. 119-17-5)(provided for in subheading 
2933.19.43.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1935)
      
    10. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.44 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2' -(1,2-ethenediyl)bis 
[5-nitro- (CAS No. 128-42-7)(provided for in subheading 2904.90.35.00) 
as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1938)
      
    11. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.48 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-3-nitro (CAS No. 
121-18-6)(provided for in subheading 2904.90.47.00) as temporarily duty 
free. (H.R. 1919)
      
    12. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.50 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-3-nitro-, 
potassium salt (CAS No. 6671-49-4)(provided for in subheading 
2904.90.47.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1920)
      
    13. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.52 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-3-nitro-, sodium 
salt (CAS No. 17691-19-9)(provided for in subheading 2904.90.40.00) as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1922)
      
    14. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.54 for Benzenesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-5-nitro (CAS No. 
121-03-9)(provided for in subheading 2904.90.20.00) as temporarily duty 
free. (H.R. 1923)
      
    15. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.22 for 6-Bromo-2,4,Dinitroaniline (CAS No. 1817-73-
8)(provided for in subheading 2921.42.90.00) as temporarily duty free. 
(H.R. 1927)
      
    16. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.34.02 for Caprolactam blocked methylene-bis-(4-
phnylisocyanate)(CAS No. 54112-23-1)(provided for in subheading 
3402.90.30) as temporarily duty free. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II 
of the HTS by inserting a new subheading 9902.38.24 for N,N,N\1\,N\1\-
tetrakis (2-hydroxyethyl)-heaxane diamide (referred to as Beta 
Hydroxyalkylamide)(CAS No. 6334-25-4)(provided for in subheading 
3824.90.90) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1677)
      
    17. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.17 for the chemical 4-Chloropyridine hydrochloride (CAS 
No. 7379-35-3) (provided for in heading 2933.90.82) used in the 
production of anti-cancer drugs, as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2042)
      
    18. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.14 for carbamic acid (U-9069) [3-((dimethylsomino) 
carbonyl)-2-pyridinyl sulfonyl]-phenyl ester (CAS No. 112-006-94-7) 
(provided for in heading 2935.00.75) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 
1606)
      
    19. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.31.12 for 3-ethoxycarbonyl-aminophenyl carbanilate 
(referred to as desmedipham)(CAS No. 13684-56-5)(provided for in 
subheading 2924.29.41) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2060)
      
    20. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.24 for 3(Diethylamino) Propylamine (CAS No. 104-78-
9)(provided for in subheading 2921.29.00.55) as temporarily duty free. 
(H.R. 1928)
      
    21. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.23 for the chemical [S-(R*,R*)]-2,3-dihydroxy-
Butanedioic acid (CAS No. 147-71-7)(provided for in subheading 
2918.19.90) used in the production of anti-HIV/anti-AIDS drugs, as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2047)
      
    22. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.19 for the chemical (3S)-2,2-Dimethyl-3-thiomorphiline 
carboxylic acid (CAS No. 84915-43-5)(provided for in heading 
2921.30.50) used in the production of anti-cancer drugs, as temporarily 
duty free. (H.R. 2044)
      
    23. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.90 for Diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone (CAS No. 20018-09-
1)(provided for in heading 2930.90.10) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 
1548)
      
    24. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.26 for 3(Dimethylamino) Propylamine (CAS No. 109-55-
7)(provided for in subheading 2921.29.00.55) as temporarily duty free. 
(H.R. 1929)
      
    25. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.31.12 for 2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl 
methanesulfonate (referred to as ethofumesate)(CAS No. 26255-79-
6)(provided for in subheadings 2932.99.08 and 3808.30.15) as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2059)
      
    26. Amend General Note 16 of the HTS to allow duty-free entry of an 
additional quantity of green peanuts that are the product of Mexico. 
General Note 16 of the HTS outlines exemptions to the application of 
General Note 1, which states generally that all goods provided for in 
the HTS are subject to duty. The bill would amend General Note 16 to 
increase by 453,597 kilograms the quantity of peanuts in immature form 
entered from January 1 to April 30 for consumption as boiled peanuts 
that are qualifying goods under subheading 9906.12.01, which outlines 
goods from Mexico covered under General Note 12 of the HTS (General 
Notes of interpretation for NAFTA). (H.R. 1907)
      
    27. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.54.03 for high tenacity single yarn of viscose rayon 
(provided for in subheading 5403.10.30) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 
1954)
      
    28. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.64.04 for skating boots for use in the manufacture of in-
line roller skates (provided for in subheading 6404.11.90) as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1882).
      
    29. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
subheading under heading 9902.30 for 2-4-dichlon-5-hydrozyhydrazine 
hydrochloride (referred to as KN001)(CAS No. 189-573-21-5)(provided for 
in subheading 2928.00.25.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1897)
      
    30. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.79 for calendaring or other rolling machines for rubber 
(provided for in subheadings 8420.10.90, 8420.91.90, or 8420.99.90) and 
material holding devices or similar attachments thereto, as temporarily 
duty free. (H.R. 1945)
      
    Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.81 for shearing machines used to cut metallic tissue 
capable of a straight cut of 5 m or more (provided for in subheading 
8462.31.00). (H.R. 1945)
      
    Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.83 for machine tools for working wire of iron or steel 
for use in products provided for in subheading 4011.20.10 (provided for 
in subheading 8463.30.00). (H.R. 1945)
      
    Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.85 for extruders of a type used for processing rubber 
(provided for in subheading 8477.20.00 or 8477.90.80). (H.R. 1945)
      
    Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.87 for machinery for molding, retreading, or otherwise 
forming uncured, unvulcanized rubber for use in processing rubber 
products provided for in subheading 4011.22.10 (provided for in 
subheading 8477.51.00 or 8477.90.80). (H.R. 1945)
      
    Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.89 for sector mold press machines used for curing or 
vulcanizing rubber (provided for in subheading 8477.90.80). (H.R. 1945)
      
    Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.84.91 for sawing machines for working cured, vulcanized 
rubber described in heading 4011 (provided for in subheading 
8465.91.00). (H.R. 1945)
      
    31. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.18 for a chemical 3-Mercapto-D-valine (CAS No. 52-67-
5)(provided for in subheading 2927.49.40) used in the production of 
anti-cancer drugs, as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2043)
      
    32. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.14 for 1,3-Napthalenedisulfonic acid, 6-amino- (CAS No. 
118-33-2)(provided for in subheading 2921.45.90.90) as temporarily duty 
free. (H.R. 1921)
      
    33. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.16 for 1,3-Napthalenedisulfonic acid, 6-amino-,disodium 
salt (CAS No. 50976-35-7)(provided for in subheading 2921.45.90.90) as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1924)
      
    34. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.30 for 2-Napthalenesulfonic acid, 7-(acetylamino)-4-
hydroxy-, monosodium salt (CAS No. 42360-29-2)(provided for in 
subheading 2924.29.70.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1932)
      
    35. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.40 for 2,7-napthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-(benzoylamino)-
5-hydroxy-, (CAS No. 117-46-4)(provided for in subheading 
2924.29.75.90) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1936)
      
    36. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.42 for 2,7-napthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-(benzoylamino)-
5-hydroxy-,sodium salt, (CAS No. 79873-39-5)(provided for in subheading 
2924.29.70.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1937)
      
    37. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.56.03 for nonwoven fiber sheet (provided for in subheading 
5603.13.00) as temporarily duty free, and by inserting a new U.S. Note 
relating to the interpretation of term ``nonwoven fiber sheet'' under 
that new heading. (H.R. 1304)
      
    38. Amend chapter 55 of the HTS by striking subheading 5501.30.00 
and inserting new subheadings with the same degree of indentation as 
the article description for subheading 5501.20.00 to provide duty-free 
treatment for oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers for use in aircraft 
brake components. (H.R. 1973)
      
    39. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.31.12 for Para ethyl phenol (referred to as PEP)(provided 
for in subheading 2907.19.20) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1678)
      
    40. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.29.09 for (+/-tetrahydrofurfuryl (R)-2-[4-(6-
chloroquinoxaline-2-yloxy) phenoxyl propanoate (referred to as 
Pantera)(CAS No. 119738-06-6)(provided for in subheading 2909.30.40) as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1886)
      
    41. Amend the HTS to allow entry of peanut butter and peanut butter 
paste manufactured from Mexican peanuts in foreign trade zones, without 
being subject to a tariff-rate quota. General Note 15 of the HTS 
outlines products which are not counted against the quantity specified 
as the in-quota quantity for agricultural products of chapters 2 
through 52, inclusive, if the product is of a type (i) subject to 
tariff-rate quota, and (ii) subject to the provisions of subchapter IV 
of chapter 99. The provision would add a new subparagraph to General 
Note 15 as follows: ``(f) peanut butter and paste manufactured in, and 
entered from, a foreign-trade zone, provided that (i) any peanuts that 
are not qualifying goods under General Note 12, and (ii) any peanut 
butter or paste, imported for use in such manufacturing are entered for 
consumption prior to admission to the foreign trade zone.'' (H.R. 1875)
      
    42. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.31.12 for 3-methylcarbonyl-aminophenyl-3-methyl-
carbanilate (referred to as phenmedipham)(CAS No. 13684-63-4)(provided 
for in subheading 2924.29.47) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2058)
      
    43. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.18 for Phenol, 2-amino-4-methyl- (CAS No. 95-84-
1)(provided for in subheading 2922.29.10.00) as temporarily duty free. 
(H.R. 1925)
      
    44. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.15 for the chemical 4-Phenoxypyridine (CAS No. 4783-86-
2)(provided for in subheading 2933.90.82) used in the production of 
anti-cancer drugs, as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 2049)
      
    45. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.14 for P-nitrobenzoic (CAS No. 62-23-7)(provided for in 
subheading 2916.89.45) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1940)
      
    46. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.39.20 for polyethylene base materials that are sanded on 
one side and surface-treated for use in the manufacture of skis and 
snowboards (provided for in heading 3920.10.00) as temporarily free of 
duty. (H.R. 1890)
      
    47. Amend chapter 39 of the HTS by striking heading 3907.99.00 and 
inserting new headings 3907.99 having the same degree of indentation as 
the article description for heading 3907.91. The new heading would 
reduce to 3.5 percent the duty on a polymer of alkanediols, monocyclic 
dicarboxylic acid dimethyl ester, monocyclic monosulfonated 
dicarboxylic acid dimethyl ester monosodium salt and hydroxy 
alkoxyalkanesulfonic acid sodium salt. (H.R. 1852)
      
    48. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.14 for P-Toluenesulfonamide (CAS No. 70-55-3)(provided 
for in heading 2935.00.95) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1214)
      
    49. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.30 for Sodium 2-chloro-6-[(4,6-dimethoxy pyrimdin-2-
yl)thio] benzoate)(referred to as Pyrithiobac Sodium)(CAS No. 123-343-
16-8)(provided for in heading 2933.59.10.00) as temporarily duty free. 
(H.R. 1793)
      
    50. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.16 for N-[(4,6-Dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl) aminocarbonyl]-
3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridine--sulfonamide (referred to as 
Rimsulfuron)(EPA Reg. No. 352-555)(provided for in heading 2933.59.10) 
as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1607)
      
    51. Amend U.S. Note 6, subchapter X, chapter 98 of the HTS to 
clarify that certain large components of certain scientific instruments 
and apparatus shall be provided the same tariff treatment as those 
scientific instruments and apparatus. The bill would provide that the 
term ``instruments and apparatus'' under subheading 9810.00.60 would 
include separable components of an instrument or apparatus that are 
imported for assembly in cases in which the instrument or apparatus, 
due to its size and complexity, cannot be imported in its assembled 
state. The bill would also provide for a single expedited hearing at 
the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce to determine whether or not 
to grant such duty treatment. (H.R. 1876)
      
    52. Amend chapter 72 of the HTS by inserting several new 
subheadings providing duty-free treatment for various qualities of 
steel used in making aperture masks for cathode-ray tube video 
displays. (H.R. 1947)
      
    53. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.72.17 for L-shaped edges of spring steel for use in the 
manufacture of skis and snowboards (provided for in heading 7217.10.90) 
as temporarily free of duty. (H.R. 1889)
      
    54. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.28 for Tannic acid (CAS No. 1401-55)(provided for in 
subheading 3201.90.10.00) as temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1931)
      
    55. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.39.04 for Tetrafluoroethylene, Hexafluoropropylene, and 
Vinylidene flouride (provided for in subheading 3904.69.50) as 
temporarily duty free. (H.R. 1893)
      
    56. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.32.04 for Benzene sulfonic acid,2,2'-((1,1'-biphenyl)-
4,4'-diyldi-2.1-ethenediyl)bis-disodium salt (referred to as Tinopal 
CBS-X )(CAS No. 27344-41-8)(provided for in heading 3204.20.80.00) as 
temporarily free of duty. (H.R. 1097)
      
    57. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.29.34 for 4-piperzone 2,2,6 tetramethyl (referred to as 
Triacetonamine)(CAS No. 826-36-8)(provided for in heading 2933.39.61) 
as temporarily free of duty. (H.R. 1887)
      
    58. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.38.08 for Methyl 2-[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2-
trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]-amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]-3-
methylbenzoate (referred to as Triflusulfuron Methyl)(CAS No. 126-535-
15-7)(provided for in heading 3808.30.15) as temporarily free of duty. 
(H.R. 1879)
      
    59. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902.54.03 for artificial filament yarn (other than sewing 
thread) of viscose rayon (provided for in subheading 5403.10.30, 
5403.31.00, or 5403.32.00) as temporarily free of duty. (H.R. 1742)
      
    60. Amend chapter 99, subchapter II of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading 9902 for viscose rayon yarn with a twist exceeding 120 turns/m 
(provided for in subheading 5403.32.00) as temporarily free of duty. 
(H.R. 1888)
      

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

      
    Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement 
for the printed record should submit at least six (6) single space 
legal size copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-
inch diskette in ASCII DOS Text format only, with their name, address 
and comments date noted on label, by the close of business, Friday, 
August 15, 1997, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways 
and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office 
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.
      

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

      
    Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a 
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed 
record or any written comments in response to a request for written 
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or 
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, 
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the 
Committee.
      
    1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must 
be typed in single space on legal-size paper and may not exceed a total 
of 10 pages including attachments. At the same time written statements 
are submitted to the Committee, witnesses are now requested to submit 
their statements on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in ASCII DOS 
Text format.
      
    2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not 
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be 
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting 
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for 
review and use by the Committee.
      
    3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a 
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written 
comments in response to a published request for comments by the 
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all 
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
      
    4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the 
name, full address, a telephone number where the witness or the 
designated representative may be reached and a topical outline or 
summary of the comments and recommendations in the full statement. This 
supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.
      
    The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being 
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary 
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press 
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted 
in other forms.
      
    Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on 
the World Wide Web at ``http://www.house.gov/ways__means/''.

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #1

    To amend 19 U.S.C. 1515(a) to provide that within 30 days 
from the date an application for further review is filed, the 
appropriate customs officer shall allow or deny the application 
and, if allowed, forward the protest to the customs officer who 
will be conducting the further review.

                                

Comments of the American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI)

    The American Association of Exporters and Importers' (AAEI) 
over 1000 members export, import, distribute and manufacture a 
complete spectrum of products, including chemicals, 
electronics, machinery, footwear, autos/parts, food, household 
consumer goods, toys, specialty items, textiles and apparel. 
Members also include firms which serve the international trade 
community, such as customs brokers, freight forwarders, banks, 
attorneys, insurance firms and carriers. AAEI members conduct 
operations in all fifty states, employing millions of U.S. 
workers. Together, AAEI companies account for a large majority 
of non-military, commercial U.S. trade.
    AAEI is pleased to respond to Chairman Crane's June 30, 
1997 Advisory, requesting comments on Miscellaneous Corrections 
to Trade Legislation and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills:

                  Proposed Miscellaneous Correction #1

    Amendment of 19 USC Sec. 1515(a)--a concomitant amendment 
should be made to Sec. 1515(c), requiring the Commissioner of 
Customs to act within 30 days (rather than 60) to review a 
request to set aside the denial of further review.

                 Proposed Miscellaneous Correction #11

    The three annual reports (Violations Estimate Report, 
Enforcement Strategy Report and Merchandise Damaged Statistics) 
provided by Customs to Congress which are proposed to be 
eliminated provide valuable information to the importing 
community. AAEI asks that they be retained.
    AAEI thanks you for the opportunity to submit its comments.

                                

        Customs and International Trade Bar Association    
                                   New York, New York 10016
                                                    August 14, 1997
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means,
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade Legislation and Miscellaneous Duty 
        Suspension Bills

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    These comments are submitted on behalf of the Customs and 
International Trade Bar Association (``CITBA'') in response to the 
invitation of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means 
Committee, issued on June 30, 1997 (No. TR-10). CITBA is a national bar 
association of over 400 lawyers whose primary law practice involves the 
federal tariff, revenue and international trade laws. The member 
lawyers devote a substantial amount of their time in the representation 
of the importing community as well as domestic producers and other 
domestic interests.
    While, after review, CITBA supports the efforts and the aims to be 
effected by the Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections, comments about 
certain proposals are necessary. These comments are directed to certain 
specific proposals; however, we support the proposals, generally, where 
no comment has been proffered.

                  Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections:

    1. The first proposal would amend 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(a) to 
provide that within 30 days following the filing of an 
application for further review, the appropriate customs officer 
shall allow or deny the application and, if allowed, shall 
forward the accompanying protest to the customs officer 
conducting the further review. Thus, a denial of the 
application for further review means that the first echelon 
customs officer will deny the request and the protest and will 
not forward the application to the next level of review. The 
first echelon customs officer may grant the application for 
further review even though the customs officer may oppose the 
requested relief.
    CITBA is concerned that the 30 day period may not be 
sufficient to provide a meaningful review of the contentions 
and issues presented by the application for further review. For 
example, if the time pressures experienced are such as to 
prevent the customs officer from conducting a meaningful review 
within the prescribed 30 day period, the application and its 
accompanying protest may be denied out of hand in order to 
comply with the proposed statutory requirements. If a denial 
occurs in such circumstances, the protesting applicant must 
commence a civil action in the U.S. Court of International 
Trade without any administrative review.
    CITBA urges that the time within which the first 
appropriate customs officer may review an application for 
further review before the customs officer must allow or deny 
the application be set at 60 days. With more time, the chances 
of a meaningful review of an application increase.
    Further, this proposal suggests that the appropriate 
customs officer at the port of entry would be granted a 
statutory authority to deny, for any reason, the protestant's 
application for further review by the Customs Service 
Headquarters as one of the options that the customs officer at 
the port must exercise within the time prescribed in the 
statutory proposal. We assume that the intent of this proposal 
is to define the time in which action on the application for 
further review shall be accomplished and that a grant of 
authority to deny such an application and thereby prevent 
further review of the protest by the Customs Service 
Headquarters is not intended by this proposal. Therefore, the 
proposal should be amended to make clear that the customs 
officers at the port of entry may not deny the protestant's 
application (and right) to further review by the Customs 
Service Headquarters. Alternatively, if the customs officers at 
the port of entry are to be granted any authority to dispose of 
an application for further review before any Headquarters 
review, that authority should be limited to a rejection of the 
application for non-substantive, procedural issues, without 
denying the protest, to allow the applicant to cure the 
objection.
    2. The second proposal would require the Commissioner of 
Customs to give not less than 30 days notice for changes in the 
customs regulations, except where excessive costs would be 
incurred or in the case of an emergency.
    CITBA notes that the Administrative Procedures Act provides 
for timely public notice for changes in the customs regulations 
which constitute rule-making. Therefore, this proposal appears 
to be redundant. In any event, a 30 day notice time period for 
changes to the customs regulations is normally insufficient.
    3. The third proposal would change the special accounting 
and attribution rules for drawback on certain petroleum 
products under section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended by NAFTA [P.L. 103-182]. The NAFTA provision was 
designed to allow the accounting for drawback purposes for 
certain petroleum products on a quantitative basis. Since the 
Customs Service, in interpreting section 313(p)(2)(iv) 
regarding substitution drawback, requires the tracing of 
molecules, correction is proposed to assure that the 
appropriate petroleum products are tracked on a quantitative 
basis.
    The fourth proposal add a new subsection (q) to section 313 
which would allow drawback for U.S. produced packaging 
materials if used by ``filling'' prior to exportation by the 
manufacturer of the packaging materials or any other person to 
package articles to be exported or destroyed. This amendment 
would change the current Customs practice which limits 
eligibility for drawback on the exportation or destruction of 
the packaging materials to the manufacturer of such materials.
    CITBA supports both proposed technical corrections since 
they assert the original Congressional intent to allow the 
payment of drawback for U.S. packaging materials used by anyone 
to package eligible articles for exportation or destruction.
    4. With respect to some proposals, such as seventh proposal 
relating to public disclosure of manifest information, CITBA 
takes no position because of a lack of consensus.
            Very truly yours,
                                   Rufus E. Jarman, Jr.
                                           President
                                   Bernard J. Babb
                                           Chairman, Committee on 
                                               Customs and Tariffs

REJ/BJB/b

                                

Comments of Terence P. Stewart, On Behalf of the Law Firm of Stewart 
and Stewart

                            A. Introduction

    The following written comments are submitted by Terence P. 
Stewart on behalf of the law firm of Stewart and Stewart in 
response to the Subcommittee on Trade's request for written 
comments regarding proposed miscellaneous corrections to trade 
legislation. See Ways and Means Committee Advisory (TR-10) 
dated June 30, 1997. Stewart and Stewart is a firm with a long 
and rich experience in trade and customs matters. In the 
following comments, we support proposed measures 1, 2, and 10 
because we believe they will improve Customs operations and 
service to the trading community. We oppose proposed measures 7 
and 11 because we believe they will undermine service to the 
trading community, limit transparency, and restrict public 
disclosure of vital trade information.

      B. Proposed Correction No. 1: Amendment to 19 U.S.C. 1515(a)

    19 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(a) provides that Customs shall, within 
two years from the date a protest is filed, accept or deny the 
protest in whole or in part. That subsection also provides that 
a protesting party may, within the time allowed for the filing 
of a protest under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514, request that the 
protest be subject to further review by another appropriate 
Customs officer. The current statute does not require Customs 
to accept or deny the application for further review within a 
prescribed time period.
    The first proposed correction would amend 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1515(a) to provide that within 30 days from the date that 
a protesting party files its application for further review, 
the appropriate Customs officer shall allow or deny the 
application, and, if allowed, forward the protest to the 
Customs officer that will conduct the further review.
    Stewart and Stewart supports the apparent goal of this 
proposal, that is, to provide adequate time for a meaningful 
further review of a protest. However, a requirement that 
Customs act on the request for further review within 30 days 
may effectively preclude substantive review of the protest at 
the port level. At present, the statute allows Customs two 
years to act upon a protest, whether or not a request for 
further review is filed. Thus, even where a protesting party 
files a protest and a timely request for further review, 
Customs is not obligated to respond to the request for further 
review at any time before the two year period for protest 
disposition expires. Although the proposed amendment would 
expedite Customs' decision with respect to the application for 
further review, thus allowing the Customs officer conducting 
further review sufficient time within the two year period to 
review the protest, such a short period as 30 days allowed to 
the port for its initial review of the protest may preclude 
anything but a superficial review by the port. Stewart and 
Stewart supports an amendment that would improve the efficient 
handling of customs protests but also would ensure that 
sufficient time is allowed, within the two year period, for an 
adequate and meaningful review by both the port initially and 
by headquarters on further review.

  C. Proposed Correction No. 2: 30 Days Notice for Change In Customs 
                              Regulations

    The second proposal would require the Commissioner of 
Customs to provide no less than 30 days public notice for 
changes in customs regulations, except to avoid excessive costs 
or to meet emergency requirements of the Customs Service.
    Stewart and Stewart supports this proposal. The requirement 
of 30 days notice to the public of changes in customs 
regulations is reasonable and would allow the trading community 
and general public adequate lead time to prepare for regulatory 
changes and comply with any new regulatory requirements.
    Moreover, a 30-day public notice requirement comports with 
the Administrative Procedure Act's general rule that 
administrative agencies shall provide 30 days notice of rule 
making prior to the rule's effective date. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d) 
provides:
    (d) The required publication or service of a substantive 
rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective 
date, except--
    (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an 
exemption or relieves a restriction;
    (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or
    (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
found and published with the rule.

D. Proposed Correction No. 7: Public Disclosure of Vessel and Aircraft 
                          Manifest Information

    19 U.S.C. Sec. 1431(c) outlines the requirements, form, and 
content of manifest information which must be publicly 
disclosed. In the Anticounterfeiting and Consumer Protection 
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-153, 110 Stat. 1389, July 2, 1996), 
Congress amended 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1431(c)(1) to require public 
disclosure of certain information contained in vessel and 
aircraft manifests, and added additional requirements as to the 
content of those manifests. Thus, Congress amended section 
1431(c)(1) of the statute to provide as follows:
    (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the following 
information, when contained in such vessel or aircraft 
manifest, shall be available for public disclosure:
    (A) The name and address of each importer or consignee and 
the name and address of the shipper to such importer or 
consignee, unless the importer or consignee has made a biennial 
certification, in accordance with procedures adopted by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, claiming confidential treatment of 
such information.
    (B) The general character of the cargo.
    (C) The number of packages and gross weight.
    (D) The name of the vessel, aircraft, or carrier.
    (E) The seaport or airport of loading.
    (F) The seaport or airport of discharge.
    (G) The country of origin of the shipment.
    (H) The trademarks appearing on the goods or packages.
    19 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1431(a)(1) (1997) (underscored text 
indicates language added by the amendment). Prior to amendment, 
the introductory language preceding subparagraph (A) had 
referred to ``such manifest,'' without particularity as to type 
of manifest.
    In contrast to the provisions of the Anticounterfeiting and 
Consumer Protection Act, section 3 of the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-295, 101 Stat. 
3515, Oct. 11, 1996) amended 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1431(c)(1) as 
follows:
    Section 431(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1431(c)(1)) is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) 
by striking ``such manifest'' and inserting ``a vessel 
manifest.''
    Also, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act 
did not provide for any additional requirements as to manifest 
content.
    There is an apparent conflict between the manifest 
disclosure and reporting requirements of the Anticounterfeiting 
and Consumer Protection Act of 1996 and the provisions of the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 with 
respect to section 1431(c)(1). The Committee's Advisory (TR-10) 
states that ``given the potentially conflicting interpretations 
of these laws, legislation may be needed to clarify that the 
language in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act reflects Congressional intent.'' Stewart and Stewart 
opposes such clarification.
    Stewart and Stewart strongly supports the manifest 
disclosure and reporting requirements enacted by Congress in 
the Anticounterfeiting and Consumer Protection Act of 1996. We 
urge the Committee to endorse the vessel and aircraft manifest 
disclosure and reporting requirements provided in the 
Anticounterfeiting and Consumer Protection Act and to clarify 
that those provisions, not the language in the Miscellaneous 
Trade and Technical Corrections Act, express the intent of 
Congress.
    In the legislative history to the Anticounterfeiting and 
Consumer Protection Act of 1996, Congress explained the purpose 
and necessity for requiring public disclosure of aircraft 
manifest information:
    This section amends section 431(c)(1) of the Tariff Act to 
permit public disclosure of aircraft manifests under the same 
terms currently allowed for sea shipments. Under current law, 
the U.S. Customs Service routinely discloses information 
relating to the nature of shipments imported by sea. This 
information has proven to be extremely valuable to U.S. 
trademark holders who are trying to trace or interdict the 
entry of counterfeit goods.
    Additional authority is needed, however, to disclose the 
same information for shipments by air. Since most low-weight, 
high value counterfeits are shipped by air, trademark holders 
need access to air shipment data as well as sea shipment data 
if they are to be able to better assist enforcement officials 
in identifying counterfeiters and stopping the flow of 
fraudulent goods transported in this manner. Moreover, this 
provision eliminates the unwarranted and out-of-date 
distinction between information required about goods shipped by 
sea as compared to goods shipped by air.
    S. Rep. No. 104-177, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1995).
    Given such a clear and emphatic statement of Congressional 
purpose and intent, a ``clarification'' such as that proposed 
would not ``reflect'' Congressional intent but negate and 
undermine it. The Committee should not allow a ``technical'' 
amendment provision to override the plain language of the 
Anticounterfeiting and Consumer Protection Act and the 
expressed will of Congress.
    As the Senate Judiciary Committee report observed, there is 
no valid reason for distinguishing between vessel and aircraft 
manifests with respect to the requirements of public disclosure 
of their contents. See S. Rep. No. 104-177 at 11. There are, 
however, compelling reasons for imposing the same public 
disclosure requirements on both vessel and aircraft manifests. 
As the Senate report noted, counterfeit goods often are 
transported to the United States by aircraft. Id. As such, lack 
of public disclosure of aircraft manifest information hampers 
the ability of trademark holders to monitor trade in 
counterfeit goods and assist enforcement of their trademark 
rights.
    Moreover, public access to information contained in 
aircraft manifests in addition to vessel manifests permits 
domestic industries to monitor imports of unfairly-traded 
merchandise. For example, without access to aircraft manifest 
information, domestic producers are incapable of monitoring 
imports of merchandise that is subject to antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders and that is routinely transported to 
the United States by aircraft (e.g., flowers). The requirement 
of public disclosure of aircraft manifest information addresses 
this problem as well as the problem of counterfeit goods.
    Finally, as the Senate report acknowledged, there is simply 
no logical reason for treating vessel and aircraft manifest 
information differently. The Anticounterfeiting and Consumer 
Protection Act amendment was intended to ``eliminate the 
unwarranted and out-of-date distinction'' between vessel and 
aircraft manifests. S. Rep. No. 104-177 at 11. Endorsement of 
the language of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act, however, would reimpose this ``unwarranted and 
out-of-date distinction.'' Accordingly, we urge the Committee 
to reject legislative proposal No. 7.

 E. Proposed Correction No. 10: Use of Customs Protest Procedures for 
                        NAFTA Preference Claims

    Proposal No. 10 would amend 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514(a) to 
clarify that importers may employ customs protest procedures to 
obtain refunds of excess duties paid on the entry of goods that 
qualify for NAFTA preference. Stewart and Stewart supports this 
proposal. The statute clearly provides that both the protest 
procedure pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514 and the procedure 
provided in 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1520(d) are available to importers 
as means to obtain refunds of excess duties paid on NAFTA-
eligible goods.
    As explained in the Committee's Advisory (TR-10), it is a 
violation of law for an importer to claim a NAFTA preference 
without first obtaining a valid certificate of origin from the 
exporter. However, because importers are often unable to obtain 
a certificate of origin before entry of the goods, they must 
file NAFTA preference claims after entry once a valid 
certificate of origin has been acquired. In cases where Customs 
liquidates the entry before the importer has obtained the 
certificate of orign and filed for NAFTA preference, importers 
have attempted to obtain refunds of excess duties paid on entry 
by filing protests under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514. Customs position, 
however, is that importers may obtain refunds of excess duties 
paid on goods qualifying for NAFTA preference only under 19 
U.S.C. Sec. 1520(d), not under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514. The 
proposed amendment would clarify that customs protest 
procedures under section 1514 are available to importers as a 
means to obtain refunds of excess duties paid on goods eligible 
for NAFTA preference.
    19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514(a) provides that the decisions of the 
Customs Service as to classification, amount of duties 
chargeable, etc. are final and conclusive unless a protest is 
filed within 90 days of liquidation. The language of section 
1514 does not restrict the right of importers to file protests 
with respect to Customs decisions regarding goods eligible for 
NAFTA preference.
    19 U.S.C. Sec. 1520(d) provides that:
    Notwithstanding the fact that a valid protest was not 
filed, the Customs Service may ... reliquidate an entry to 
refund excess duties paid on a good qualifying under the 
[NAFTA] rules of origin ... for which no claim for preferential 
tariff treatment was made at the time of importation if the 
importer, within 1 year after the date of importation, files 
... a claim that includes--
    (1) a written declaration that the good qualified under 
those rules at the time of importation;
    (2) copies of all applicable NAFTA Certificates of Origin 
...;
    (3) such other documentation relating to the importation of 
the goods as the Customs Service may require. [Emphasis added]
    It is evident from the introductory clause of subsection 
1520(d)--``Notwithstanding the fact that a valid protest was 
not filed''--that the filing of protests to obtain refunds of 
excess duties paid on NAFTA-eligible goods is contemplated by 
the statute. The procedure outlined in section 1520(d) is 
provided in addition to the protest procedure under section 
1514 as a means for importers to obtain refunds of excess 
duties paid of goods that qualify for NAFTA preference. 
Clearly, Customs interpretation that importers are restricted 
to the procedure prescribed in section 1520(d) conflicts with 
the plain language of that provision and section 1514.

       F. Proposed Correction No. 11: Customs Reports to Congress

    Present law requires the Commissioner of the Customs 
Service to submit the following three reports to Congress on an 
annual basis:
    (1) Violation Estimates Report--19 U.S.C. Sec. 2083(a) 
requires that no later than 30 days before the fiscal year 
begins, the Commissioner shall submit a report estimating ``the 
number and extent of violations of the trade, customs, and 
illegal drug control laws ... that will likely occur during the 
fiscal year'' and the ``relative incidence of violations 
estimated ... among the various ports of entry.''
    (2) Enforcement Strategy Report--19 U.S.C. Sec. 2083(c) 
requires that, within 90 days after submitting the Violation 
Estimates Report, the Commissioner shall submit a report 
detailing a ``nationally uniform enforcement strategy'' for 
dealing with the estimated violations.
    (3) Merchandise Damaged Statistics--19 U.S.C. Sec. 2071 
(note) requires that the Commissioner shall keep accurate 
statistics on the incidence, nature, and extent of damage to 
merchandise resulting from customs examinations and shall 
submit an annual report summarizing such statistics.
    Proposed Correction No. 11 would amend 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2083(a) and (c) as well as 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2071 to 
eliminate the requirement that Customs submit each of the three 
annual reports outlined above.
    Stewart and Stewart opposes this proposed change. These 
annual reports provide information that is vital to the 
enforcement of the nation's trade, customs, and illegal drug 
control laws and to Congress' effective oversight of the 
Customs Service, as well as contributing to the valuable goal 
of an informed trading public. The current requirements that 
Customs submit these annual reports should be maintained and 
Customs should comply with Congress' mandate.

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #2

    To require the Commissioner of Customs to provide no less 
than 30 days public notice for changes in regulations, except 
to avoid excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of 
the Customs Service.

  see Customs and International Trade Bar Association under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #1

  see Stewart and Stewart under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #1

                                

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

    Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) was 
amended by the North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA) 
Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182] to provide special accounting 
and attribution rules for drawback on petroleum products. The 
provision was to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis, relieving 
Customs and industry from the problem of ``tracking molecules'' 
for the attribution of drawback. However, Customs current 
interpretation of 19 U.S.C. (p)(2)(a)(iv) relating to 
substitution drawback for finished petroleum derivatives 
requires companies to track delivery of the actual imported 
petroleum in possession of the exporter, in effect requiring 
the tracing of molecules. The proposed amendment would clarify 
the original intention of the Customs Modernization Act that 
selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.

see also Customs and International Trade Bar Association under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #1

                                

                      Aectra Refining & Marketing, Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77056
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Aectra Refining & Marketing, Inc. wishes 
to express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting 
and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules'' a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           Anthony J. Voigt
                                                          Treasurer

                                

                           American Petroleum Institute    
                                  Washington, DC 20005-4070
                                                    August 15, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) represents over 350 
companies involved in all aspects of the oil and gas industry, 
including exploration, production, transportation, refining, and 
marketing. Because petroleum products make up a significant part of the 
U.S. domestic and foreign trade, API and its members have extensive 
dealings with the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) on which they rely 
heavily for information and guidance. API strongly supports the 
proposed miscellaneous corrections to trade legislation as described in 
your advisory from the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on 
Trade, dated June 30, 1997, specifically item 3 which pertains to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    This issue was addressed in detail in Title VI--Customs 
Modernization, Section 632, of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA) Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182]. That law provided special 
rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for selected petroleum 
products on a quantitative basis for purposes of duty drawback claims. 
Without that provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for a 
product that is exported, our member companies would have to track the 
actual molecules of certain petroleum derivatives as the product 
travels through a series of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like 
products from other sources. This, of course, would be an impossible 
accounting feat that in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty 
drawback for exports of various petroleum products.
    The need for a legislative correction stems from Customs' 
interpretation of 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p)(2)(a)(iv) which reads 
``purchased or exchanged, directly or indirectly, an imported qualified 
article from an importer in a quantity equal to or greater than the 
quantity of the exported article.'' Customs' interpretation that the 
``imported qualified article'' cannot be an article of the same kind 
and quality as the imported qualified article, or any combination 
thereof, in order to qualify for drawback, violates the intent of the 
statute, in effect requiring the tracking of actual molecules which 
P.L. 103-182 intended to eliminate.
    We believe that a technical amendment with the following language 
would correct this misinterpretation: Sec. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iv) is amended 
to read as follows: ``purchased or exchanged, directly or indirectly, 
from an importer, an imported qualified article, an article of the same 
kind and quality as the imported qualified article, or any combination 
thereof, equal to or greater than the quantity of the exported 
article.''
    Thank you for your interest in this issue. We urge your 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                          Charles J. DiBona
                                                          President

                                

                                  ARCO Chemical Company    
                     Newton Square, Pennsylvania 19073-2387
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, ARCO Chemical Company wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for export products, ARCO Chemical Company would have 
to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum derivatives as the 
product travels through a series of pipelines and tanks, commingled 
with like products from other sources. This would be a difficult 
accounting feat that in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty 
drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    We thought the Customs Modernization Act provision settled the 
matter once and for all. However, there appears to be confusion at 
Customs on how to implement this provision. Their apparent 
interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of molecules''--
a result clearly not intended by the Custom Modernization Act. That is 
why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 1997 press 
release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thank you for your interest with respect to this issue. We urge 
your subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                      Clarisse G. McCormick
                                                Assistant Secretary

                                

                                  ARCO Products Company    
                                 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, ARCO Products Company wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tank, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Jane Adam
                                               Managing Tax Counsel

ARCO Products is a Division of AtlanticRichfieldCompany

                                

                                       Basis Clearing, Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77002
                                             August 6, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Basis wishes to express our strong 
support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules 
for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible account feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         Kenneth J. Stockel
                                                 Controller

                                

                                       Basis Petroleum, Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77002
                                             August 8, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Basis wishes to express our strong 
support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules 
for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible account feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           Georganne Hodges
                                           Assistant Controller

                                

                                       BP Chemicals Inc.    
                                       Cleveland, OH 44128-2837
                                       August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, BP Chemicals Inc. wishes to express our 
strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution 
rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customer Modernization 
Act provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there 
appears to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. 
Their apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking 
of molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customer 
Modernization Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in 
your June 30, 1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original 
intent of the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum 
products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Ann Carter
                                           Customer Service Manager

                                

                                                  BP Oil Company    
                                             Cleveland, OH 44114
                                                 August 12, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    I am responding to the Committee on Ways and Means Advisory dated 
30 June 1997 wherein comments were requested regarding Miscellaneous 
Corrections to Trade Legislation and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension 
Bills.
    BP Oil Company, an operating subsidiary of BP Exploration & Oil 
Inc., expresses its strong support for item #3 regarding accounting & 
attribution rules for drawback on petroleum products.
    Accounting for petroleum products on a quantitative basis for 
substitution drawback purposes is consistent with the way the industry 
operates physically. This is to say that fungible products are 
commingled in storage tanks and pipelines. The ``molecule'' based 
tracking methodology espoused by Customs is impractical and results in 
no additional benefit to the U. S. Treasury. Indeed, molecule tracking 
only results in additional costs that will end up being passed on to 
the public.
    We understand how Customs can interpret the vague, existing 
language to mean molecule tracking of drawback qualifying product, but 
we believe that it was not the intent of the drafters of the Customs 
Modernization Act to make things more complicated and costly. The 
technical corrections proposed by your Subcommittee Advisory No. TR-10 
are needed to clarify matters.
    We support the amendment to clarify the original intention of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
            Sincerely,
                                              Kevin M. Carr
                            Vice President Control & Administration

                                

      
                            Cargill/Northeast Petroleum    
                                     Beverly, MA 01915-0790
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Cargill/Northeast Petroleum wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Custom 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Barb Ducat
                                                         Controller

                                

                           Chevron Chemical Company        
                                U.S. Chemicals Division    
                                     Houston, TX 77010-3030
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington. D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Chevron Chemical Company wishes to 
express its strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum and chemical products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely
                                          Robert E. Kennedy
                                           General Manager, Olefins

                                

                               Chevron Products Company    
                                     Concord, CA 94524-2073
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Chevron Products Company wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                          Pat E. Yarrington
                                                        Comptroller

                                

                            CITGO Petroleum Corporation    
                                       Tulsa, OK 74102-3758
                                                    August 13, 1997
A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: June 30, 1997 Advisory from the Committee on Ways and Means, 
        Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade Legislation.

    Dear Mr. Singleton,

    CITGO is a major refining, marketing and transportation company 
with 5,800 employees, 6 major manufacturing facilities, ownership of 52 
marketing terminals and a product supplier to more than 14,000 branded 
gasoline stations. We also currently operate in five foreign trade 
zones, and thus have an ongoing relationship with the U.S. Customs 
Service.
    CITGO was pleased to note that the Committee has included in their 
proposed miscellaneous corrections, a provision that is important to 
help provide clarity to U.S. Customs practice. Item 3 listed in the 
proposal will clarify the intention of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback. This provision is 
necessary to ensure that private industry and the government are 
working from the same rules. The provision recognizes the fungibility 
of petroleum products, a long time practice by all petroleum companies 
in the nation and an absolute necessity to supplying petroleum products 
throughout the nation.
    The American Petroleum Institute has submitted language amending 
1313(p)(2)(a)(iv) of the Customs Modernization Act that will correct 
current Customs interpretations of ``qualified imported article.'' 
CITGO strongly supports this language, and urges that it be included in 
legislation reported out of the Committee. Thank you for your support.
            Sincerely,
                                       Ezra C. Hunt
                                      Senior Vice President
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                                

                                        Conoco Inc.        
                               UPNA--Leveraged Services    
                                       Ponca City, OK 74602
                                                    August 12, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Conoco Inc. wishes to express our strong 
support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules 
for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely.
                                  James A. McDonald
                              Director--Excise Tax Division
                                           UPNA--Leveraged Services

                                

                              Delta Air Lines, Inc.        
               Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport    
                                     Atlanta, Georgia 30320
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 30514

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Delta Air Lines, Inc. wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. The law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like Delta 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thank you for your interest in this issue. We urge your 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Very truly yours,
                               Thomas J. Roeck, Jr.
                             Senior Vice President--Finance
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

                                

                                   DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY    
                                     LAKE JACKSON, TX 77566
THE HONORABLE PHILIP M. CRANE
CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
1102 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

    DEAR CHAIRMAN CRANE:

    IN RESPONSE TO YOUR JUNE 30,1997 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON 
MISCELLANEOUS TRADE PROPOSALS, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY WISHES TO 
EXPRESS OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR ITEM 3, RELATING TO THE ACCOUNTING AND 
ATTRIBUTION RULES FOR DUTY DRAWBACK ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
    THIS ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN DETAIL AS PART OF THE CUSTOMS 
MODERNIZATION ACT, ENACTED DECEMBER, 1993. THAT LAW PROVIDED SPECIAL 
ACCOUNTING RULES TO ALLOW THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY TO ACCOUNT FOR 
SELECTED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ON A QUANTITATIVE BASIS FOR PURPOSES OF 
DUTY DRAWBACK CLAIMS. WITHOUT THAT PROVISION, IN ORDER TO FILE CERTAIN 
DRAWBACK CLAIMS FOR PRODUCT THAT IS EXPORTED, COMPANIES LIKE OUR OWN 
WOULD HAVE TO TRACK THE ACTUAL MOLECULES OF CERTAIN PETROLEUM 
DERIVATIVES AS THE PRODUCT TRAVELS THROUGH A SERIES OF PIPELINES AND 
TANKS, COMINGLED WITH LIKE PRODUCTS FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS, OF 
COURSE, WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE ACCOUNTING FEAT THAT IN EFFECT WOULD 
PREVENT US FROM OBTAINING DUTY DRAWBACK FOR EXPORTS OF MANY PETROLEUM 
PRODUCTS.
    WE AND OTHERS IN INDUSTRY THOUGHT THE CUSTOMS MODERNIZATION ACT 
PROVISION SETTLED THE MATTER ONCE AND FOR ALL. HOWEVER, THERE APPEARS 
TO BE CONFUSION AT CUSTOMS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROVISION. THEIR 
APPARENT INTERPRETATION WOULD ONCE AGAIN REQUIRE THE ``TRACKING OF 
MOLECULES''--A RESULT CLEARLY NOT INTENDED BY THE CUSTOMS MODERNIZATION 
ACT. THAT IS WHY THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN YOUR JUNE 30,1997 
PRESS RELEASE IS NEEDED--TO CLARIFY THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CUSTOMS 
MODERNIZATION ACT THAT SELECTED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SHOULD BE TRACKED ON 
A QUANTITATIVE BASIS FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSTITUTION DRAWBACK.
    THANKS, FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE. WE URGE YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE 
TO APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.
            SINCERELY,
                               JOHN D. WILLIAMS JR.
                                    IMPORT SERVICES MANAGER
                                                             080897

                                

      
                    E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company    
                                       Wilmington, DE 19898
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, E. I. DuPont wishes to express our 
support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules 
for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies would have to 
track the actual molecules of certain petroleum derivatives as the 
product travels through a series of pipelines and tanks, commingled 
with like products from other sources. This, of course, would be an 
impossible accounting feat that in effect would prevent the filing of 
duty drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    The Customs Modernization Act provision was intended to finally 
settle the matter. However, there now appears to be a difference in 
interpretation on how to implement this provision. Customs' apparent 
interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of molecules''--
a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is 
why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 1997 press 
release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We request your 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             JANET S. KEMPF
                                              DUTY DRAWBACK MANAGER

                                

                                            Enron Corp.    
                                Washington, D.C. 20006-4607
                                                    August 12, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Attn: Mr. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

Re: Customs Modernization Act--Drawback Clauses--Item 3

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Enron wishes to associate itself with others supporting the need to 
clarify that the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act was 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Therefore, we are submitting this statement of position as part of 
your record.
            Sincerely,
                                         E. Joseph Hillings
     Vice President and General Manager--Federal Government Affairs

                                

                                   Entec Polymers, Inc.    
                                         Maitland, FL 32751
                                                     August 7, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Entec Polymers, Inc. wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                      David J. Der Hagopian
                                                          President

                                

                                  Exxon Company, U.S.A.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77252-2180
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Exxon Company U.S.A. wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
             Sincerely,
                                         L. J. Berniard III
                                                        Coordinator

                                

                          Fina Oil and Chemical Company    
                                   Dallas, Texas 75221-2159
                                                    August 12, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Fina Oil and Chemical Company's Response to Your June 30, 1997 
        Request for Comments on Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade 
        Legislation--Item 3 relating to 19 USC 1313(p)(2(a)(iv) (``Item 
        3'')

    Dear Representative Crane:

    Fina Oil and Chemical Company supports the passage of Item 3. Item 
3 will continue to allow for the refund of duties that an importer pays 
to the U.S. Customs Service on certain petroleum products when similar 
products are exported. Item 3 clarifies and codifies the current 
practice and prevents the U.S. Customs Service from imposing unworkable 
accounting rules on companies that deserve and rely upon drawback.
    To promote our nation's exports and economic well-being, Congress 
has long promoted programs to refund duties importers pay on certain 
products if those products are again exported (some of those programs 
are almost as old as our country). ``Substitution'' drawback allows for 
a duty refund on products of the same kind and quantity under 19 USC 
1313(p). The exported product does not have to be the same exact 
article that was imported--an article of the same kind and quantity 
will do. Substitution drawback is particularly important for the 
petroleum industry because such products are moved through countless 
miles of pipes and commingled in common storage facilities with like 
products from various sources.
    By passing 19 USC 1313(p)(2(a)(iv), and clarifying its reach in the 
Customs Modernization Act of 1993 (``Mod Act''), Congress allowed 
drawback claimants to use ``quantitative'' accounting to avoid the 
bureaucratic and accounting nightmare if a company had to directly 
track the disposition of imported petroleum products. As the 
legislative history makes clear, Congress was seeking to ``permit the 
effective use of present law and substantially reduce paperwork for the 
industry and administrative costs for the Government.'' Congress did 
not worry that companies would abuse their drawback privileges because 
the Customs Service ``will be able to ensure greater compliance through 
the use of enhanced penalty and informed compliance provisions'' 
elsewhere in the Mod Act.
    For several years now, the U.S. Customs Service abided by this 
clear congressional mandate, but now threatens to impose unwieldy and 
expensive administrative burdens on petroleum companies. This 
unanticipated and unneeded policy change will not make the substitution 
drawback program more secure, but will only result in needless 
paperwork, lost exports, and lost jobs.
    Item 3 will ensure that this does not happen, and will make certain 
that companies continue to receive the duty refunds owed to them.
    I welcome your questions and, if asked, will gladly supplement this 
comment with additional information.
             Sincerely,
                                         Jim Bailey
         Manager, Unbranded Fuels and Business Development,
          Southeastern Business Unit, Fina Oil and Chemical Company

                                

                           Galaxy Energy (U.S.A.), Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77060
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Galaxy Energy (U.S.A.), Inc. wishes to 
express our strong supports Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             Paul A. Strong
                                                 Operations Manager

                                

                   George E. Warren Corporation, Energy    
                             Vero Beach, Florida 32960-5518
                                                     August 7, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, George E. Warren Corporation wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         Jonathan W. Taylor
                                                          Treasurer

                                

                               Georgia Gulf Corporation    
                                  Plaquemine, LA 70765-0629
                                                     August 8, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Georgia Gulf Corporation wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting task that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                               Janice Owens
                                              Customs Administrator

cc: Will Hinson, Manager Legislative, Community & Public Affairs

                                

                                 Global Petroleum Corp.    
                                     Waltham, MA 02254-9161
                                                     August 6, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Global Petroleum Corp. wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duly drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies would have to 
track the actual molecules of certain petroleum derivatives as the 
product travels through a series of pipelines and tanks, commingled 
with like products from other sources. Such tracking would be an 
impossible accounting feat that in effect would prevent us from 
obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    Global Petroleum Corp. thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the above-identified matter once and for all. 
However, there appears to be confusion at Customs on how to implement 
this provision. The apparent interpretation of Customs would once again 
require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not intended by 
the Customs Modernization Act. The proposed technical correction in 
your June 30, 1997 press release is needed to clarify the original 
intent of the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum 
products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
substitution drawback.
    Thank you for your interest in this issue. We urge your 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal at its earliest opportunity.
            Very truly yours,
                                          Edward J. Faneuil
                                                    General Counsel

EJF/mdc

                                

                     Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc.    
                                          Katy, Texas 77450
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc. 
wishes to express our strong support of Item 3, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Bobby Waid
                                                          President

                                

                          H. Muehlstein & Company, Inc.    
                                     Norwalk, CT 06854-1631
                                                     August 8, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, H. Muehlstein & Company, Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                          Jerry J. Johnston
                                                     Vice President

jw

                                

                          Houston Marine Services, Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77007
                                                     August 6, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Houston Marine Services wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                        James S. Riley, Jr.
                                                     Vice President

                                

Comments of the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association

    The Independent Fuel Terminal Operator Association 
(``IFTOA'') hereby submits these comments to the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means in response 
to its ``Request for Written Comments on Miscellaneous 
Corrections to Trade Legislation and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills.''

                            I. Introduction

    IFTOA is an association of independent companies which own 
or control oil terminals, located along the East Coast from 
Maine to Florida, capable of receiving ocean-going tankers. 
Members are primarily importers, exporters and marketers of 
home heating oil, gasoline, and residual fuel oils at the 
wholesale and retail levels. As a result of their import and 
export activities, they participate at times in the duty 
drawback program. Accordingly, Members would be significantly 
affected by the recent debate between the petroleum industry 
and the U.S. Customs Service regarding the proper means of 
implementing ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' for refined 
petroleum products.
    In 1990 and 1993, Congress adopted amendments addressing 
``Substitution Duty Drawback'' consistent with a position of 
the petroleum industry: (1) the refunds would be based on 
exported volumes not exceeding the volumes imported, and (2) 
only a quantitative ``match-up'' of imported and exported 
material would be required. However, Customs has repeatedly 
interpreted the law in a more restrictive manner. Earlier this 
year Customs informally indicated that it may once again impose 
a restrictive interpretation. In response, the Association 
urges Congress to adopt a clarifying amendment to resolve the 
matter.

                             II. Background

A. Duty Drawback

    ``Duty Drawback'' is the procedure whereby 99 percent of 
duties paid on an imported entry may be refunded if the goods 
or a product made from the imported material are exported. 19 
U.S.C. section 1313(a). ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' occurs 
when there is the exportation of a product that is of the same 
``kind and quality'' as an imported product; in such a case, 
the exported product is substituted for the imported product, 
and the refund is permitted. In addition, the quantity of the 
exported product does not exceed that of the imported product. 
19 U.S.C. section 1313(b).

B. Pre-1987 Practice

    Prior to 1987, ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' permitted an 
exporter to qualify for a refund if, measured on a monthly 
basis, the exported petroleum products were of the same kind 
and quality and quantity of the imported petroleum products. 
Customs permitted the exporter to calculate exports from an 
entire tank farm operated as a single facility. Industry 
supported this interpretation and found compliance relatively 
easy.

C. 1987 Ruling

    In 1987, Customs issued Customs Service Decision 88-1.\1\ 
That ruling permitted ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' if 
exported product withdrawn from a single commingled tank on a 
monthly basis did not exceed the quantity of the imports. 
However, petroleum products commingled in separate tanks in a 
common storage facility were required to be accounted for on a 
daily and per tank basis pursuant to an acceptable accounting 
method such as ``First In-First Out.'' The petroleum industry 
found this requirement to be too burdensome and seldom used the 
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 22 Cust. B. & Dec. No. 307 (June 29, 1987).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. 1990 Trade Act

    In 1990, the petroleum industry urged Congress to amend the 
law to make clear that ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' could be 
used if (1) imported and exported goods of like kind and 
quality were substituted for one another; (2) the exported 
products did not quantitatively exceed the imported products; 
and (3) calculations for compliance purposes could be made on a 
monthly basis.
    Pursuant to that request, Congress enacted Section 484A of 
the ``Customs and Trade Act of 1990.'' \2\ It embodied the 
industry position and was enacted after 18 months of 
negotiations among Congress, the industry and the U.S. Customs 
Service. However, Section 484A required that the product be 
commingled in a common facility, and industry members could not 
use the procedure for petroleum products stored at different 
facilities. Because petroleum products frequently are stored at 
a number of common storage facilities before reaching the point 
of export, the ``common facility'' requirement proved to be an 
obstacle, and the procedure fell into disuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ P.L. 101-382 (August 20, 1990).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. 1993 Statute

    Accordingly, in 1993 the petroleum industry again urged 
Congress to address the matter by adopting a revised or 
clarifying provision. Section 632(a)(6) of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act was designed to 
simplify the ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' procedure for 
petroleum.\3\ It was intended to require that an exporter only 
match the quantity of his export with the quantity of the 
import of material of the same kind and quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ P.L. 103-182 (December 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the section was not precisely drafted. It provided 
that a drawback claim may be made for petroleum products 
exported in the same or greater quantity as a ``qualified 
article'' if the exporter:
    (i) manufactured or produced the qualified article;
    (ii) purchased or exchanged the qualified article from a 
manufacturer or producer;
    (iii) imported the qualified article; or
    (iv) purchased or exchanged, directly or indirectly, an 
imported qualified article from an importer.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 19 U.S.C. section 1313(p)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``qualified article,'' as defined in subparagraph 3(A), 
must be either manufactured or produced in the United States or 
imported duty-paid.

                  III. Current Customs Interpretation

A. Subsection (A)(iv)

    As indicated, in subparagraph (A)(iv) of the 1993 
provision, unlike subparagraphs (i) through (iii), ``qualified 
article'' is described as an ``imported qualified article.'' 
The U.S. Customs Service has informally indicated to industry 
that it may interpret this distinction as a requirement that 
the product imported by a person, other than the exporter, must 
be tracked and identifiable ``molecule for molecule'' when it 
is sold to the exporter. The exporter would then have the 
ability to substitute another product for exportation. Such an 
interpretation would be inconsistent with the statutory intent 
of the 1993 law. The legislative history makes clear that the 
1993 amendment was designed to provide greater flexibility to 
industry when claiming duty drawback and to reduce paperwork 
for the industry and administrative costs for the government. 
Thus, while the language of the provision is not clear, the 
interpretation that Customs is considering would negate the 
very purpose of the measure.

B. Retroactivity

    In addition, Section 632(b) of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement Implementation Act provides for retroactive 
application of the petroleum drawback provisions to all claims 
filed or liquidated on or after January 1, 1988 and 
unliquidated, under protest or in litigation as of December 8, 
1993. Industry representatives believe that Customs may take a 
restrictive position to prevent the expensive refund of duties 
over such a long period of time.
    However, of particular concern is the applicability of 
Customs' restrictive interpretation on certain claims that may 
have already been paid. Under section 191.72 of the Customs 
regulations, an exporter can post a bond and have a duty 
drawback refund accelerated within three weeks of submitting 
the claim. Customs then takes additional time to finish 
processing the claim and may require repayment if it is not 
substantiated. Many exporters are currently receiving duty 
drawback money pursuant to this expedited procedure. If Customs 
were to apply its restrictive position retroactively to those 
claims, recipients would have to return the money to Customs. 
Indeed, it has been suggested that companies would even have to 
refund money from claims liquidated after December 8, 1993. In 
either case, claimants have relied in good faith on the intent 
of the law, and the economics of the numerous transactions 
would be undone, thereby creating financial hardship for those 
companies.

                             IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators 
Association respectfully requests that Congress include a 
``Substitution Duty Drawback'' amendment in any bill addressing 
``Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade Legislation.'' Such an 
amendment should provide a drawback mechanism based strictly on 
a ``quantitative'' basis: (1) the volume of exported product 
qualifying for the drawback refund could not exceed the volume 
of ``qualified product'' that was imported into the country; 
and (2) the petroleum industry would not have to trace the 
molecules of the imported product from the importer to the 
exporter. A quantitative provision would be a practical and 
commercially realistic means of applying the ``Substitution 
Duty Drawback'' provision.
    The Association appreciates the opportunity to provide 
these comments and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee 
on this issue.
    Thank you very much.

                                

                             ITOCHU International, Inc.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77057-3009
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, ITOCHU International, Inc. wishes to 
express its strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted December 8, 1993. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             Hideaki Hirako
                                                    General Manager

                                

                                      JBC International    
                                     Washington, D.C. 20006
                                                    August 15, 1997
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments on Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections to US Trade Laws

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of JBC International and a number of its clients, I wish 
to comment on several of the proposed miscellaneous corrections 
published in your release of June 30, 1997, No. TR-10. We offer our 
support for items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. We have no comment on the 
other items.
    As an active participant in the development of the Customs 
Modernization Act (ModAct) and Chairman of the Industry Functional 
Advisory Committee for Customs matters, I have a keen interest in the 
facilitation of merchandise processing and rigorous enforcement of US 
trade laws. A number of these corrections remove ambiguities and 
confusion about the intention of NAFTA and the ModAct for the benefit 
of US Customs officials who are administering the law. For example, if 
a product is found to be eligible for NAFTA preference, it should enjoy 
all of the benefits of that eligibility, including exemption from the 
Merchandise Processing Fee.
    On another item, confidential treatment of company information is 
becoming even more critical with the development of international 
automation. We fully support the Committee's efforts to clarify the 
language as outlined in the notice.
    Lastly, all aspects of Customs clearance must come under a program 
of electronic filing. The issue of the progress of the implementation 
of the National Customs Automation Program is much bigger than foreign-
trade zone filings. We are looking forward to working with the 
Committee and others in Congress and the Administration to expedite the 
development and implementation of the Customs Automated Environment.
    We thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We are 
prepared to respond to any questions Committee members or staff may 
have about our views.
            Sincerely,
                                           James B. Clawson

                                

                              J.G. Eberlein & Co., Inc.    
                                       New York, N.Y. 10006
                                                    August 14, 1997
Hon. Philip M. Crane, Chairman
House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Trade
1035 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for two of the 
technical trade proposals announced in your press release dated June 
30, 1997.

      Item 3--ACCOUNTING RULES FOR DRAWBACK ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

    The Customs Modernization Act (P.L. 103-182) amended the drawback 
statute (19 U.S.C. Section 1313(p) to provide for special accounting 
and attribution rules for drawback on petroleum products. The purpose 
of the amendment was to permit the accounting of selected petroleum 
products on a ``quantitative basis'' rather than a molecule for 
molecule basis for attribution of substitution drawback thereby 
alleviating the arduous task of tracing molecules.
    Since the enactment of the Customs Modernization Act, Customs has 
been giving inconsistent and conflicting signals on the implementation 
of this amendment. Customs now is apparently of the opinion that the 
actual imported petroleum must be tracked to the possession of the 
exporter, in effect, mandating the tracing of molecules under Section 
1313(p)(2)(A)(iv). This interpretation is diametrically opposed to the 
intent of the statute, and furthermore is in direct conflict with 
Customs own written guidance procedures.
    This technical amendment will serve to rectify Customs 
misinterpretation by providing the needed clarification as to the 
meaning of original provision and is revenue neutral.

  Item 4--DRAWBACK ELIGIBLE CONTAINERS ``FILLED'' PRIOR TO EXPORTATION

    This technical amendment is needed to clarify that drawback 
eligible containers manufactured in the United States will not be 
considered to have been ``used'' in the United States (and thereby 
disqualified for drawback) if, prior to exportation such containers are 
filled by someone other than the manufactures of such containers.
    In general, drawback is allowable upon the exportation of articles 
manufactured in the United States with the use of imported materials, 
``provided that such articles have not been'' used prior to 
exportation. A number of manufacturers in the United States produce 
packing containers with the use of imported materials. Recently, an 
issue has been raised by Customs as to whether the ``filling'' of the 
container prior to its exportation constitute a use of such container 
making it ineligible for drawback.
    The Customs Modernization Act added a new subsection (q) to Section 
313 of the Tariff Act providing for drawback on packaging materials 
under manufacturing or same condition drawback (subsections (a), (b), 
(c) or (j) of Section 313) where the packaging is ``used'' by filling 
with a substance prior to exportation.
    However, in Customs Headquarters, Ruling 227276 dated April 7, 1997 
restricts this provision to the filling of containers by the 
manufacturer of such containers. Customs interpretation of the statute 
is that the filling of a container by anyone other than the 
manufacturer of the container constitutes a disqualifying use and 
renders the container ineligible for drawback upon its exportation. 
Customs interpretation reverses its prior position (Customs 
Headquarters Ruling 225658 dated January 17, 1995) allowing drawback on 
containers regardless of who filled the container.
    We are of the opinion that these results were unintended by the 
statute and constitute a major policy change.
    This technical amendment would rectify this situation by providing 
that packing material may be used by the manufacturer or any other 
person prior to export and remain eligible for drawback.
    This change is revenue neutral as it merely clarifies the intent of 
Congress in passing the Customs Modernization Act on this provision.
    We respectfully request that your Subcommittee advance both these 
measures at the earliest possible time.
            Very truly yours,
                                   Edward P. Denninger, Sr.
                                           Executive Vice President

EPD,Sr.:pa

                                

                                 J.M. Rodgers Co., Inc.    
                                    New York, NY 10006-1039
                                                    August 14, 1997
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    J. M. Rodgers Co., Inc. appreciates the opportunity to express our 
wholehearted support for two technical trade proposals included in your 
June 30 press release.

      Drawback-Eligible Containers ``Filled'' Prior to Exportation

    The first is item number 4, which would make a technical change in 
the drawbackstatute to clarify that drawback-eligible containers 
manufactured in the UnitedStates, will not be considered to have been 
``used'' in the United States (and thereby disqualified for drawback) 
if, prior to exportation, such containers are filled by someone other 
than the manufacturer.
    Generally, duty drawback is allowed upon the export of articles 
manufactured or produced within the U.S. with the use of imported 
materials, provided that those articles have not been used prior to 
exportation. A number of manufacturers throughout the United States 
produce packaging products (bottles, cartridges, etc.) made from 
imported materials. In recent years, the issue has arisen as to whether 
``filling'' the container prior to its export constitutes a ``use'' of 
the article, which would make it ineligible for duty drawback.
    To address this situation, the Customs Modernization Act added a 
new subsection (q) to Section 313 f the Tariff Act, specifically 
allowing drawback on packaging materials, under manufacturing or same 
condition drawback [subsections (a), (b), (c) or (j) of Section 313] 
where the packaging is ``used'' by filling with a substance prior to 
exportation.
    However, a recent Customs ruling [Customs Headquarters Ruling 
227276 of April 7, 1997] limits this provision only to ``filling'' of a 
container by the manufacturer of the container. According to Customs 
interpretation, filling of a container by anyone other than the 
manufacturer is a disqualifying ``use'' and, therefore, the container 
is not eligible for drawback upon export. Customs position reverses a 
prior ruling [Customs Headquarters Ruling 225658 f January 17, 1995] 
allowing drawback for the container or packaging material, regardless 
of who filled it.
    J.M. Rodgers Co. Inc. believes that this result was unintended by 
Congress and represents a major change in policy. The proposed 
amendment in Item 4 of your press release would ameliorate the problem 
by providing that U. S.-produced packaging material may be ``used'' by 
the manufacturer or any other person and, thus, will remain eligible 
for duty drawback upon export. This is a non controversial change and 
one that is revenue-neutral, since it simply clarifies what Congress 
intended to accomplish in passing the Customs Modernization Act 
provision on this issue.

           Acounting Rules for Drawback on Petroleum Products

    The second proposal we support is Item 3 of the press release. The 
current drawback statute [19 U.S.C. Section 1313(p)] was amended by the 
Customs Modernization Act [P.L. 103-182] to provide special accounting 
and attribution rules for drawback on petroleum products. The purpose 
of the amended petroleum provisions was to allow the industry to 
account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis, 
relieving the industry from the impossible task of ``tracing 
molecules'' for the attribution of drawback.
    Since passage of the Customs Modernization Act, Congress has given 
conflicting signals on how they will implement the provision. It now 
appears Customs will be taking the position that companies are required 
to track delivery of the actual Imported petroleum to the possession of 
the exporter, in effect requiring the tracing of molecules under 
Section 1313(p)(2)(A)(iv). This interpretation is flatly inconsistent 
with the intent of the statute, as well as with Customs' own interim 
guidance procedures.
    The proposed technical change in Item 3 would remedy this 
situation, providing needed clarification as to the meaning of the 
original Customs Modernization provision. Again, this is a non 
controversial change in the accounting rules for attribution of duty 
drawback and is also revenue neutral.
    J.M. Rodgers co. Inc. strongly supports both of these technical 
trade provisions and urge your subcommittee to advance both measures at 
the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             Frank McCarthy
                                                     Vice President

                                

                         Lyondell Petrochemical Company    
                                  Houston, Texas 77253-3646
                                                    August 15, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997, request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Lyondell Petrochemical Company wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997, press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thank you for your interest in this issue. We urge your 
subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         P. Beth McCutcheon
                                                General Tax Officer

JFA/mcs

cc: B. Wade-Gulf Coast Drawback Services

                                

                           MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc.    
                               Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3960
                                                     August 7, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                          Randy M. Newcomer
                                                          President

RMN/kar

                                

                            Matrix Marine Fuels, L.L.C.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77213-6290
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Matrix Marine Fuels, L.L.C. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Kim M. Ivy
                                            Vice President, Finance

KMI/cdr

                                

                                             MIECO Inc.    
                                  Long Beach, CA 90802-4828
                                                     August 8, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, MIECO Inc. wishes to express our strong 
support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules 
for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Very truly yours,
                                          Richard E. Lowell
                             Director of Administration and Counsel

                                

                     Millennium Petrochemicals Inc.        
                         A Millennium Chemicals Company    
                                       Cincinnati, OH 45249
                                                     August 8, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Millennium Petrochemicals Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             Henley R. Webb
                                 Vice President and General Counsel

                                

                                  Montell USA, Inc.        
                                    Montell Polyolefins    
                                  Wilmington, DE 19850-5439
                                                    August 12, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Montell USA, Inc. wishes to express our 
strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution 
rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         Randall W. Simpson
  Supervisor--Transportation, Distribution & Fleet Systems/Services

CMAct
RWS:pk

                                

National Council on International Trade Development (NCITD)  
                                                           
                                       Washington, DC 20006
                                                    August 15, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on the 
miscellaneous trade proposals, the National Council on International 
Trade Development (NCITD) wishes to express our strong support for Item 
3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback 
on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. The law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, the companies in our 
association would be forced to track the actual molecules of certain 
petroleum derivatives as the product travels through a series of 
pipelines and tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. 
This, of course, would be an impossible accounting feat that would 
effectively prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many 
petroleum products.
    The NCITD, and others involved with the industry, thought the Mod 
Act provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there 
appears to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. 
Their apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking 
of molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Mod Act. For this 
reason, the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 1997 press 
release is needed to clarify the original intent of the Mod Act, that 
selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative basis 
for purposes of substitution drawback.
    We thank you for your interest in this issue. We urge the 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Ray Shaw
                                       Chairman, Drawback Committee

                                

      National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of 
                                                America    
                                       Washington, DC 20036
                                                    August 15, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America 
(NCBFAA) appreciates the opportunity to express our wholehearted 
support for two technical trade proposals included in your June 30 
press release.

      Drawback-Eligible Containers ``Filled'' Prior To Exportation

    The first is item number 4, which would make a technical change in 
the drawback statute to clarify that drawback-eligible containers, 
manufactured in the United States, will not be considered to have been 
``used'' in the United States (and thereby disqualified for drawback) 
if, prior to exportation, such containers are filled by someone other 
than the manufacturer.
    Generally, duty drawback is allowed upon the export of articles 
manufactured or produced within the U.S. with the use of imported 
materials, provided that those articles have not been used prior to 
exportation. A number of manufacturers throughout the United States 
produce packaging products (bottles, cartridges, etc.) made from 
imported materials. In recent years, the issue has arisen as to whether 
``filling'' the container prior to its export constitutes a ``use'' of 
the article, which would make it ineligible for duty drawback.
    To address this situation, the Customs Modernization Act added a 
new subsection (q) to Section 313 of the Tariff Act, specifically 
allowing drawback on packaging materials, under manufacturing or same 
condition drawback [subsections (a), (b),(c) or (j) of Section 313] 
where the packaging is ``used'' by filling with a substance prior to 
exportation.
    However, a recent Customs ruling [Customs Headquarters Ruling 
227276 of April 7, 1997] limits this provision only to ``filling'' of a 
container by the manufacturer of the container. According to Customs 
interpretation, filling of a container by anyone other than the 
manufacturer is a disqualifying ``use'' and, therefore, the container 
is not eligible for drawback upon export. Customs position reverses a 
prior ruling [Customs Headquarters Ruling 225658 of January 17, 1995] 
allowing drawback for the container or packaging material, regardless 
of who filled it.
    NCBFAA believes that this result was unintended by Congress and 
represents a major change in policy. The proposed amendment in Item 4 
of your press release would ameliorate the problem by providing that 
U.S.-produced packaging material may be ``used'' by the manufacturer or 
any other person and, thus, will remain eligible for duty drawback upon 
export. This is a noncontroversial change and one that is revenue-
neutral, since it simply clarifies what Congress intended to accomplish 
in passing the Customs Modernization Act provision on this issue.

          Accounting Rules for Drawback on Petroleum Products

    The second proposal we support is Item 3 of the press release. The 
current drawback statute [19 U.S.C. Section 1313(p)] was amended by the 
Customs Modernization Act [P.L. 103-182] to provide special accounting 
and attribution rules for drawback on petroleum products. The purpose 
of the amended petroleum provisions was to allow the industry to 
account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis, 
relieving the industry from the impossible task of ``tracing 
molecules'' for the attribution of drawback.
    Since passage of the Customs Modernization Act, Customs has given 
conflicting signals on how they will implement the provision. It now 
appears Customs will be taking the position that companies are required 
to track delivery of the actual imported petroleum to the possession of 
the exporter, in effect requiring the tracing of molecules under 
Section 1313(p)(2)(A)(iv). This interpretation is flatly inconsistent 
with the intent of the statute, as well as with Customs' own interim 
guidance procedures.
    The proposed technical change in Item 3 would remedy this 
situation, providing needed clarification as to the meaning of the 
original Customs Modernization provision. Again, this is a 
noncontroversial change in the accounting rules for attribution of duty 
drawback and is also revenue neutral.
    NCBFAA strongly supports both of these technical trade provisions 
and urge your Subcommittee to advance both measures at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                              Michael Dugan
                                                          President

                                

                                               Neste Oy    
                                          Houston, TX 77027
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade Legislation

    Dear Chairman Crane,

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Neste Oy wishes to express our strong 
support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules 
for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought that Customs Modernization 
Act provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there 
appears to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. 
Their apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking 
of molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs 
Modernization Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in 
your June 30, 1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original 
intent of the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum 
products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                             Mauri Hattunen
                                                     Vice President

KHB/bap

                                

      
                            Northville Industries Corp.    
                              Melville, New York 11747-0398
                                                     August 7, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Northville Industries Corp. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with the products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                   Joseph J. Ackell
                                     Senior Vice President,
                             Chief Legal and Public Affairs Officer

                                

                           Northwest Airlines, Inc.        
                                       Department A4192    
                                    St. Paul, MN 55111-3034
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Northwest Airlines wishes to express our 
strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution 
rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and or all. However, there appears to 
be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         Michelle S. Dalsin
                                               Manager Fuel Control

                                

                                    NOVA Chemicals Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77060
                                                     August 7, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, NOVA Chemicals Inc. wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                               Wayne Holden
                           Business Segment Leader, Styrene Monomer

WH:hrh

                                

                             Petro-Diamond Incorporated    
                              Irvine, California 92713-9617
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments of 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Petro-Diamond Incorporated wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as a part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that if exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the tracking of 
molecules--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That if why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thank you for your interest in this issue. We urge Your 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           James J. Keating
                                                          President

                                

                             Phillips Petroleum Company    
                               Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
                                                    August 12, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    This is in response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals. Phillips Petroleum Company strongly 
supports Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution rules for 
duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry feel that the Customs Modernization 
Act, enacted in December of 1993, addressed and settled the issue. This 
law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry 
to account for certain specific petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of claiming duty drawbacks. Without these special 
rules Phillips and other companies in the industry would not be able to 
file for duty drawback on many exports, unless we could perform the 
effectively impossible accounting feat of tracking the actual molecules 
of specific petroleum derivatives as they pass through various tanks 
and pipelines and are commingled with like products from other sources. 
Clearly, the intent of the Customs Modernization Act was to facilitate 
the claiming of duty drawback, not to hamper it. Yet in the confusion 
of how to implement the law, Customs appears to have reverted back to 
the philosophy of tracking molecule by molecule.
    The proposed technical correction in your June 30, 1997 press 
release is most definitely needed in order to clarify the original 
intent of the Customs Modernization Act (that selected petroleum 
products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
substitution drawback).
    We thank you for your interest in this issue and we urge your 
Subcommittee to approve this proposal as soon as possible.
            Sincerely,
                                          Joseph W. O'Toole
                             Vice President and General Tax Officer

                                

                                  Rohm and Haas Company    
                                Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Rohm and Haas Company wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical corrections in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                        Geoffrey B. Hurwitz
                                   Director of Government Relations

                                

      
                                      Shell Oil Company    
                                       Houston, Texas 77252
                                                     August 6, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Shell Oil Company wishes to express our 
strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution 
rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                          Steven C. Stryker
                                Vice President, General Tax Counsel

                                

                             Statoil North America Inc.    
                                         Stamford, CT 06905
                                                    August 14, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Statoil North America wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Mark Cain

MC/js

                                

                               Sterling Chemicals, Inc.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77002-4312
                                                     August 6, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Sterling Chemicals, Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    The issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                   William J. Magnuson, Jr.
                                                        Tax Manager

                                

      
                             Trans World Airlines, Inc.    
                                  St. Louis, Missouri 63101
                                                     August 7, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Trans World Airlines wishes to express 
our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travel's through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of jet fuel.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at your earliest opportunity.
             Sincerely,
                                         Michael J. Palumbo
                                        Senior Vice President & CFO

                                

                  Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation    
                              San Antonio, Texas 78269-6000
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30, 
1997 press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           W. Reed Williams
                                     Vice President, Product Supply

                                

                                    United Airlines        
                                     World Headquarters    
                                    Chicago, Illinois 60666
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, United Airlines wishes to express our 
strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and attribution 
rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             James V. Sines
                                          Vice President Purchasing

                                

                                Valero Refining Company    
                                  Houston, Texas 77052-3720
                                                    August 11, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Valero Refining Company wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           Roberta M. Rossi
                               Vice President and Managing Attorney

                                

                            Venture Coke Company L.L.C.    
                                          Houston, TX 77079
                                                     August 6, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Venture Coke Company L.L.C. wishes to 
express our strong support for Item 3, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided special 
accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain 
drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like our own 
would have to track the actual molecules of certain petroleum 
derivatives as the product travels through a series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like products from other sources. This, of 
course, would be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion at Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why the proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 
press release is needed--to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                              J.W. Thompson
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                                

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #4

    Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) was 
amended by the North American Free Trade Agreements 
Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182] to insert a new subsection 
(q) allowing drawback on packaging materials, where the 
packaging is ``used'' by filling prior to exportation. Customs 
interprets ``use'' by filling to be limited to the manufacturer 
of the packaging material and that filling may not be performed 
by another company. Customs proposes to reverse or modify 
Headquarters ruling 225658 of January 17, 1995, allowing such 
treatment. This proposed provision would amend section 313(q) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(q)) by inserting a 
new section for drawback eligible packing material filled prior 
to exportation. The proposed provision would provide that 
packaging materials produced in the United States, which are 
used by the manufacturer or any other person for articles which 
are exported or destroyed shall be eligible for a drawback 
refund of 99 percent of any duty, tax, or fee imposed on the 
importation of materials used to manufacture the packing 
materials. The proposed amendment would provide that U.S.-
produced packaging material may be ``used'' by the manufacturer 
or any other person and, thus, will remain eligible for 
drawback payment.

see also Customs and International Trade Bar Association under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #1

 see also JBC International under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

    see also J.G. Eberlein & Co., Inc. under Proposed Miscellaneous 
                             Corrections #3

     see also J.M. Rodgers Co., Inc. under Proposed Miscellaneous 
                             Corrections #3

 see also National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America 
              under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

                                

                                       BASF Corporation    
                         Mount Olive, New Jersey 07828-1234
                                                    August 11, 1997
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade Legislation: Section 313(q) of 
        the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(q))

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    We are writing in support of the proposed correction to Section 
313(q) of the Tariff Act of 1930, which deals with drawback eligible 
packing material filled prior to exportation. BASF Corporation is one 
of the largest chemical manufacturers in the United States and, as a 
major importer and exporter, is an active participant in duty drawback 
programs.
    The proposed amendment to Section 313(q) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
would provide that packaging materials produced in the United States, 
which are used by the manufacturer or any other person for articles 
which are exported or destroyed shall be eligible for dury drawback 
refunds of 99% of the duty paid on the imported materials used to 
manufacture the packaging materials. The proposed amendment would 
provide that packaging material produced in the United States may be 
``used'' by the manufacturer or any other person, thereby remaining 
eligible for duty drawback refunds (italics added).
    We support this proposed amendment as it will provide logistical 
flexibility in the filling of containers with product for exportation. 
The eligibility for duty drawback for these containers will enable both 
the exported products and their containers to continue to compete 
effectively in international markets. The current limitation to 
containers ``used'' solely by the manufacturer of the packaging 
material is far too restrictive and has an inimical effect upon 
drawback and, therefore, upon the competitiveness of U.S. products sold 
abroad.
    We thank you for your kind consideration of these comments.
            Very truly yours,
                                        Richard J. Salamone
             Manager, Customs & International Regulatory Compliance

                                

                     Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc.    
                                          Katy, Texas 77450
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your June 30, 1997 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc. 
wishes to express our strong support of Item 4, relating to drawback on 
packaging material.
    This issue was addressed in detail as part of the Customs 
Modernization Act, enacted several years ago. That law provided for 
drawback on packaging material. A recent ruling by U.S. Customs impacts 
the availability of drawback.
    The proposed technical correction in your June 30,1997 press 
release is needed so that packaging material produced in the United 
States may be ``used'' by the manufacturer or any other person and, 
thus, be eligible for drawback when the ultimate product is exported.
    Thanks for your interest in this issue. We urge your Subcommittee 
to approve this proposal at the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Bobby Waid
                                                          President

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #5

    To amend section 411 et seq. of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) relating to the National Customs 
Automation Program to require Customs to establish and 
implement the means by which foreign-trade zone admission data 
can be electronically filed.

 see also JBC International under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

                                

Written Comments of IMS Worldwide, Inc., Friendswood, Texas

    Pursuant to the United States House of Representatives' 
Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on Trade's request 
for written public comments for the record from all parties 
interested in technical corrections to recent trade 
legislation, IMS Worldwide, Inc. (IMSW) submits the following 
statement:
    The particular technical correction this statement concerns 
is the automation of Foreign-Trade Zone admission procedures, 
namely the ability to electronically submit Customs Form 214 
(CF 214). This form is used when goods are brought, 
``admitted'' in Zone terms, into a Foreign-Trade Zone and is 
the only Customs Form used in large quantities across the 
country that cannot be transmitted to Customs electronically.
    As a Foreign-Trade Zone consulting firm, IMSW both works 
and has worked with a number of Foreign-Trade Zone operators 
who deal with recordkeeping and Customs issues on a daily 
basis. Consequently, we are well aware of the Customs forms and 
other methods of reporting required in Zones and have even 
operated Zones ourselves.
    One of our clients operating in an FTZ undertakes weekly 
Customs entries, and they send information to their Customs 
Broker through EDI. Correctly completing and submitting their 
CF 214 requires five people. Our client must fill out the form 
and physically take it to Customs, since the local Customs 
office refuses to accept faxes. Additionally, if the 214 is 
used as a dray ticket, the trucker has to physically take it to 
the port.
    We are aware that, internal to Customs, a draft electronic 
214 has been created by an internal ad hoc team, but Customs' 
ACE Team has not yet agreed to use it. We feel the U.S. 
Congress should do everything in its power to force Customs to 
use the electronic 214. A model exists; let's use it or modify 
it.
    Additionally, under the recent Customs reorganization, the 
automation of FTZ admission procedures will most likely not 
occur within the next five years. This is an unreasonable time 
period. Due to the rapidly increasing level of international 
trade, more companies than ever operate in Foreign-Trade Zones 
(over 300,000 employed by FTZ's in 1996!). Companies are 
trading more goods faster than ever, and they've found Zones 
often make importing and exporting easier, in addition to the 
increased revenues FTZ operation can generate. These companies 
need the U.S. Government on their side, helping them compete 
with foreign firms in our fast-paced world of international 
commerce. One small step by which government can assist is 
making it possible to electronically file CF 214's.
    Under automated admission procedures, a firm could both 
fill out and submit the form much more rapidly than under 
today's manual procedures. Most modern companies automate all 
of their recordkeeping processes, and being able to 
electronically submit the CF 214 would help them streamline 
their procedures and better maintain records. Electronic files 
are rarely misplaced, can be easily backed up, and, due to the 
use of a keyboard rather than a pen, are often easier to read.
    Additionally, the issue of American dominance in the 
international trade arena cannot be ignored. Anything we can do 
to facilitate trade will add an extra weight to our side of the 
trade balance scales. Automating FTZ entry procedures makes 
every involved party's task simpler. Customs will no longer 
have to manually type information, the U.S. Census Bureau and 
the Food and Drug Administration will no longer have to wait 
for information, and FTZ operators will be able to streamline 
and simplify their recordkeeping procedures.

                                

                           Massachusetts Port Authority    
                          Port Department, Boston, MA 02210
                                                      July 28, 1997
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

REF: Technical Correction Amending Section 411 et seq. of the Tariff 
        Act of 1930 (19 USC 1411 et seq.)

    Dear Mr. Singleton,

    As Grantee/Administrator of Foreign Trade Zone #27 in Boston, the 
Massachusetts Port Authority supports the technical correction to the 
above-referenced act, which has been submitted by the National 
Association of Foreign Trade Zones.
    The Port of Boston faces very stiff competition from Canadian ports 
such as Montreal and Halifax, who market themselves very aggressively 
as North American gateways to the U.S. importers and exporters.
    A Foreign Trade Zone is a distinct advantage to certain importers 
and exporters who might otherwise be tempted to use Canadian ports. 
User interest in our Foreign Trade Zone is on the rise, and for these 
reasons we want to make using the Foreign Trade Zone as smooth as 
possible.
    The Foreign Trade Zone Admission Process is essential in our case 
to facilitating the use of Boston's zone by U.S. importers and 
exporters.
    We therefore ask that you prioritize the automation of the Foreign 
Trade Zone Admission Process by supporting the referenced technical 
change as submitted by the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones.
    Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                               Ralph F. Cox
                                                      Port Director

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #6

    To amend section 491(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1491(a)) to extend the retention period for 
International Travel Merchandise (ITM) held at Customs-approved 
storage rooms (CASR) to five years, identical to the period for 
all classes of Customs-approved bonded warehouses. ITM consists 
of in-flight merchandise sold on board international air 
carriers after departure from U.S. Customs territory. 
Presently, ITM is imported to the United States under bond and 
is moved to centralized, Customs-approved bonded warehouses. 
The merchandise is further distributed to CASRs near the 
airports where it is stored, manipulated, and exported under 
Customs' supervision. The CASRs are regulated as if the 
merchandise were being held ``on dock'' awaiting exportation. 
Prior to the Customs Modernization Act, ITM had been held at 
the CASRs in 90-day increments for up to one year. However, 
Customs believes that, under the terms of a revision provided 
in the Customs Modernization Act relating to unclaimed 
merchandise in General Order warehouses, the maximum period may 
now be six months. The proposed revision would extend the 
retention period to five years and extend to CASRs the same 
treatment which is given to Customs-approved bonded warehouses.

                                

                          Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc.    
                                    Jamaica, New York 11413
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

ATTN: A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the various technical 
trade bills and proposals being considered by your Subcommittee. On 
behalf of Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc., I am pleased to submit the 
following comments on Item #6, which clarifies the intent of Congress 
in passing the Customs Modernization Act and extends the retention 
period for International Travel Merchandise held at customs-approved 
storage rooms (CASRs).
    As the largest operator in the in-flight duty free industry, IDFS 
has a significant interest in this issue, and we fully support this 
proposal.

                            What Is A CASR?

    It may be helpful to review what a CASR is. CASRs are 
utilized in the in-flight business. The merchandise stored in a 
CASR is often called International Travel Merchandise (ITM)--
gift items, jewelry, liquor and similar merchandise that is 
offered for sale on board aircraft to passengers upon their 
departure from the U.S.
    Customs has allowed the importation and entry of these 
items for retention under continuous customs custody at a 
facility at an airport for future delivery to aircraft for 
exportation. The facility where the international travel 
merchandise is stored is referred to as a ``Customs-approved 
storeroom,'' or CASR.
    To provide an example of how this works, the International 
Travel Merchandise is taken from a CASR and loaded as a ``kit'' 
onto a departing airplane, where goods are sold to passengers. 
At the end of the flight, the remaining merchandise is often 
stored overnight or for some period at the foreign destination 
point and is likely to be loaded on to a return flight and 
further depleted. Once it arrives back in the U.S., the ``kit'' 
is taken to the CASR and replenished.
    The movement of merchandise into and out of a CASR, as well 
as the inventories of merchandise remaining in the CASR, must 
be strictly accounted for and reported to Customs.

                How a CASR Is Defined Under Customs Law

    A CASR is presently different from a customs bonded 
warehouse. In fact, there is no requirement that the CASR 
itself be bonded--rather the merchandise itself is covered 
under a transportation bond by the carrier. Under Customs law, 
a CASR is a creature of 19 U.S.C. 1553--entry for 
transportation in bond and exportation--as implemented by 19 
CFR 18.24. This regulatory provision, entitled ``Retention of 
Goods on Dock,'' allows ``in-transit merchandise to remain on 
the dock'' for renewable periods of 90 days. A Customs 
Directive states that the total length of time in a CASR cannot 
exceed one year.
    The basis for this one year period was 19 U.S.C. 1491, 
which stated in part that ``any entered or unentered 
merchandise (including merchandise entered for transportation 
in bond or exportation) which shall remain in Customs custody 
for one year...shall be considered unclaimed.''
    In the Customs Modernization Act, Section 1491 was changed 
in two respects: 1) the time period for merchandise to be 
considered ``unclaimed'' property was shortened to six months; 
and 2) the scope of this section was narrowed from ``any 
merchandise in Customs custody'' to ``any merchandise 
which...remain(s) in a bonded warehouse pursuant to section 
1490.''
    Since a CASR is not a bonded warehouse and the merchandise 
in a CASR is not entered pursuant to section 1490 (which is a 
section dealing with General Order warehouses, where 
merchandise goes if ``entry'' of the merchandise cannot be 
completed for some reason, such as lack of documentation or 
some other deficiency), the section 1490 time limits no longer 
apply to CASRs.

          Customs Interpretation of Modernization Act Changes

    There is disagreement at Customs, however, in the 
implementation of this provision. They are of the opinion that 
the section 1490 change from one year to six months requires 
Customs to apply this same time limit to merchandise stored in 
a CASR. Yet, in arriving at this conclusion, they are simply 
ignoring the plain words of the revised statute, which very 
clearly narrowed the scope of the statute to General Order 
merchandise stored in a bonded warehouse.
    To support their conclusion, Customs continues to cling to 
a footnote which has appeared in the regulations (19 CFR 18.24, 
footnote 9) dealing with CASRs. That footnote references 19 
U.S.C. 1491 as the basis for limiting merchandise in a CASR to 
one year. While that may have been the basis for the one-year 
limitation for many years, once the Customs Modernization Act 
narrowed the scope of section 1491, the footnote became invalid 
and inappropriate. It references a section of the law that no 
longer applies to the situation at hand.
    Customs interpretation would mean that a footnote to a 
regulation takes precedence over the words of the statute 
itself. This is a curious, somewhat twisted method of statutory 
construction.

                    The Trade Subcommittee Proposal

    That is the reason the proposal in your June 30 press release is 
needed--to make it even more explicit in the statute that Customs has 
the authority to allow merchandise to remain in a CASR beyond the six 
month limit established in section 1491. The proposal provides maximum 
flexibility to Customs by giving the agency the authority to allow the 
merchandise to remain in a CASR for up to five years--the same period 
that applies to the storage of goods in a Customs bonded warehouse.
    Without this provision, Customs apparently will insist that no 
International Travel Merchandise remain in a CASR longer than six 
months--a requirement that serves no useful purpose, while triggering 
enormous, duplicative paperwork and accounting requirements. Goods will 
have to be moved at the end of six months for no other purpose than to 
comply with an erroneous interpretation of the law. This moves us in 
the opposite direction of where the Customs Service is trying to go--
eliminating unnecessary, paper-generating reporting requirements, 
thereby freeing Customs to target their resources to higher risk 
activities. Furthermore, it will be extremely costly to our industry 
and interfere in our ability to sell these products.
    We urge you to work towards swift passage of this technical, but 
highly important provision, which is non-controversial and revenue 
neutral. We would be pleased to provide you with any additional 
information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Peter J. Cathey
                                                          President

                                

                      Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc.        
                                           JFK Division    
                                        Jamaica, NY., 11413
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

ATTN: A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    On behalf of the New York office of the Inflight Division of Duty 
Free International, I wish to express our support for the CASR proposal 
[Number 6] in your press release of June 30, 1997. This provision would 
clarify the current law as to the length of time merchandise can be 
held in a customs-approved storage room (CASR), and extend the time 
period so that it is equal to the retention period for merchandise in a 
customs bonded warehouse.
    We are very pleased you are considering this proposal. Customs 
wants to enforce their unusual interpretation of the law, which will 
result in a six-month retention period for merchandise stored in a 
CASR. Such a requirement would needlessly interfere with the conduct of 
our business, necessitating the movement of goods out of a CASR for no 
other reason than to comply with Customs' mistaken interpretation. It 
also would generate reams of excessive reporting and prove very costly 
to the industry.
    At a time when Customs is trying to reduce unnecessary and 
duplicative paper in their processes and focus their resources on 
higher risk areas, such a requirement runs completely counter to that 
goal.
    Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
            Sincerely,
                                              Mario Scorcia
                                         Vice President, Operations

                                

                      Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc.        
                                        Chicago Station    
                                    Schiller Park, IL 60176
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

ATTN: A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The Chicago office of the Inflight Division of Duty Free 
International is pleased to provide the following comments on the 
proposal in Item 6 of your June 30, 1997 press release, which relates 
to the retention period for merchandise in a customs-approved storage 
room (CASR). We strongly support this proposal.
    Without this change, which explicitly provides the authority for 
merchandise to remain in a CASR for up to five years, Customs will 
require in-flight businesses like our own to either fully deplete or 
else move all of our inventory located in a CASR at the end of six 
months. This is just plain foolishness. It results from an erroneous 
interpretation by Customs of current law and serves the agency no 
useful purpose. Moreover, it creates enormous and unnecessary paperwork 
requirements for our industry, not to mention the major cost to in-
flight to move inventory in six month cycles.
    We appreciate your interest in this issue and hope you can gain 
passage of this provision in the near future.
            Sincerely,
                                              Celeste Moran
                                                            Manager

                                

                      Inflight Duty Free Shop, Inc.        
                                        Detroit Station    
                                        Romulus, MI., 48174
                                                    August 13, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

ATTN: A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The Detroit office of the Inflight Division of Duty Free 
International strongly endorses the trade proposal in your press 
release of June 30, 1997 that relates to the retention period for 
merchandise held in a customs-approved storage room (CASR).
    This is a technical, but highly necessary, change. Without it, my 
company and others like it will be forced to arbitrarily move product 
every six months for no particular purpose, other than Customs' 
erroneous interpretation of current law. While some items move quickly 
in and out of inventory, other items do not. To comply with a six month 
retention limit would be extremely costly to business, create mountains 
of additional paperwork and reporting and interfere with our ability to 
sell these products.
    We applaud your efforts to correct this situation and look forward 
to seeing this proposal passed by Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Papelian
                                    Director, Regulatory Compliance

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #7

    Section 431 of the Tariff Act of 1930 outlines the 
requirements, form, and content of manifest information which 
must be publicly disclosed. Section 431(c) outlines the 
requirements for public disclosure of manifest information. On 
July 2, 1996, the President signed the Anticounterfeiting and 
Consumer Protection Act of 1996 [P.L. 104-153], which amended 
section 431(c)(1) to require public disclosure of vessel and 
aircraft manifest information, as well as additional 
requirements as to the content of such information. On October 
11, 1996, the President signed into law the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 [P.L. 104-295], which 
amended section 431(c)(1) to require public disclosure of 
vessel manifest information only, and makes no additions to the 
law regarding the content of such information. Given the 
potentially conflicting interpretations of these laws, 
legislation may be needed to clarify that the language 
contained in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act of 1996 reflects Congressional intent.

see also Customs and International Trade Bar Association under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #1

 see also JBC International under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

 see also Stewart and Stewart under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections 
                                   #1

                                

Comments of the Air Courier Conference of America, Falls Church, 
Virginia

    On behalf of the Air Courier Conference of America 
(``ACCA'') International Committee (``IC''), we hereby submit 
these comments concerning Section 11 of the Anticounterfeiting 
Consumer Protection Act of 1996, Pub. Law 104-153, which allows 
public access to air carrier cargo manifests.
    ACCA is the trade association representing the express 
carrier industry; ACCA-IC is the section of ACCA representing 
those express carrier companies with significant international 
operations. ACCA-IC members include large firms with global 
delivery networks, such as DHL, Federal Express, TNT and United 
Parcel Service, as well as smaller businesses with strong 
regional delivery networks, such as Global Mail, Midnite 
Express and Quick International. Together, ACCA-IC members 
employ approximately 415,000 American workers and earned global 
revenues of $45 billion in 1996. ACCA-IC members constitute a 
significant volume of import business. In 1996, we accounted 
for roughly 10.2 million entries into the United States with an 
approximate value of $23 billion.
    ACCA supports the position set forth in the comments 
submitted by the Air Transport Association (``ATA''). We concur 
that implementation of Section 11 will unintentionally aid 
those involved in terrorist activities as well as assist those 
in the counterfeiting business. As succinctly noted by the ATA, 
the Act will unintentionally produce:
     added security risks for all shippers, passengers, 
air carriers and other modes of transportation from a better 
educated criminal or terrorist;
     an environment that fosters corporate espionage;
     smarter and more opportune counterfeiters; and
     overwhelming computer development costs for air 
carriers.
    We concur with ATA that it would be advisable to establish 
a working group to address the counterfeiting problem. We would 
be pleased to work with other carrier groups to improve 
counterfeiting detection while not compromising security.
            Respectfully Submitted,
                                           Evelyn M. Suarez
                                            Counsel, Ross & Hardies

Communications regarding these comments should be addressed to: 
Evelyn M. Suarez, Counsel, Ross & Hardies, 202-835-7450; or Sue 
Presti, Executive Director, Air Courier Conference of America, 
703-204-9677.

                                

Comments of the Air Transport Association

    The Air Transport Association of America (ATA), on behalf 
of its member airlines, submits these comments concerning the 
referenced Public Law to amend 19 USC 1431 regarding public 
access to air carrier manifest.
    ATA's membership consists of 22 scheduled airlines of the 
United States and three international, scheduled air carriers. 
Together these airlines carry more than half of the air cargo 
that arrives in the United States from foreign locations; they 
are thereby responsible for collecting at least half of the air 
cargo manifest data. Of particular interest to ATA are the 
proposals that require U.S. Customs to make all air cargo 
manifest data available to the public.
    While ATA appreciates the fact that current Federal law is 
not adequate to protect consumers and American businesses from 
the crime of counterfeiting legitimate trademark products, 
there are parts of Public Law 104-153, Anti-counterfeiting 
Consumer Protection Act of 1996, to which Customs contributed 
and for which it is currently drafting proposed regulations, 
that we feel will unintentionally aid those involved in 
terrorist activities as well as assist those in the 
counterfeiting business. In fact, the Act will contribute 
unique opportunities for terrorists and counterfeiters to the 
detriment of the general public.
    Overall, ATA supports the concept and goal of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act. However, we believe Section 11 that 
allows public access to air carrier cargo manifest data will 
produce results contrary to its original objective. 
Specifically, the Act will unintentionally produce (1) added 
security risks for all shippers, passengers, air carriers and 
other modes of transportation from a better educated criminal 
or terrorist; (2) an environment that fosters corporate 
espionage; (3) smarter and more opportune counterfeiters and; 
(4) overwhelming computer development costs for air carriers.

                             Security Risks

    Public access to air cargo manifest data as stated in 
Public Law 104-153 will allow previously confidential 
information to pass through the hands of the very criminal 
element, such as organized crime or terrorists, from which the 
law is trying to protect the American public. Sensitive data 
such as shipper and consignee, commodity description, routing 
details, number of pieces and weight, when placed in an 
automated environment, can produce very revealing information 
that could foster criminal activity.
    Air cargo is typically used by shippers who need to get 
sensitive, high value goods to retail outlets quickly to take 
advantage of current consumer trends. Air carrier cargo 
manifests, if made public, will reveal shipper and consignee 
name and address, commodity description, number of pieces and 
weight, name of the air carrier, port of loading, port of 
discharge, country of origin, and trademarks. Simple analysis 
of this data will reveal to terrorists, organize crime, and 
others, shipping habits of global companies, security and risk 
assessment, customer lists, current popular consumer products, 
shipping trends, quantity and value of goods, shipping 
schedules, location of goods and other marketing data. This 
part of the Act educates the terrorist or criminal enabling 
them to make intelligent decisions of what flight or goods to 
target based on the shipper, commodity descriptions, quantity, 
transportation schedule, location, and value the goods would 
produce on the street.
    Moreover, from a safety and security perspective the 
consequences are much more significant. The public availability 
of cargo manifest information is a road map for any potential 
terrorist. This data can provide them with particularly 
sensitive information in order to overcome current security 
procedures by revealing shipping habits of legitimate 
manufactures. For example, a terrorist will be able to 
determine origin, destination, flight numbers, commodity 
descriptions, and frequency used by legitimate manufacturers. 
This gives the terrorist an opportunity to mask a detonating 
substance in a shipment that uses similar information from a 
legitimate manufacturer. Each component, on its own is 
harmless, together they are lethal.
    Public access to manifest data presents other security 
risks to the public and transportation staff as well. Commodity 
descriptions for goods such as precious metals, diamonds, 
currency and bank notes, high value goods, and prone to theft 
goods such as VCR's, portable electronics, leather goods, and 
garments, all identified by trademarks, create security risks 
for these types of shipments, the personnel handling them, and 
the general public. For example, on August 14, 1996, gunmen 
robbed a fully loaded passenger airliner while on the runway in 
southern France. The Airbus A-320 was stopped on the runway and 
the thieves went directly to the rear cargo hatch and unloaded 
60 pounds of French bank notes. The captain of plane reported 
that they appeared to know exactly what they were looking for. 
One can reasonably expect that this type of incident will 
increase if manifest data is made public and the criminal 
element transforms innocent data into precision strike 
capabilities. Additionally, as air carriers routinely use 
ground transportation to complete the transportation cycle, the 
same can be said about increases in truck hijacking.

                          Corporate Espionage

    The second problem created by the Anticounterfeiting Act 
will be corporate espionage. Historically, the shipper and 
forwarder community have maintained that the identities of 
shipper and consignee are confidential information. In essence, 
public access to this type of data will allow the 
reconstruction of customer lists. No company or industry would 
produce and publicly post its customer list, yet this is what 
Public Law 104-153 will accomplish.
    For years shippers have found comfort in the 
confidentiality of their customer information when shipping by 
air. In fact, in 1989 when Customs introduced regulations that 
required shipper and consignee information to appear on air 
cargo manifests, exporters and importers vehemently opposed it. 
Although it is a legal responsibility of the carriers to 
manifest goods, Customs officials conceded to the industry 
objections by allowing confidential and direct submission of 
shipper and consignee data to Customs.
    Although there is a provision for shippers to request 
customer confidentiality, that provision is weak in that it 
requires the request to be made every two years. Additionally, 
shippers have criticized Customs' ability to maintain 
confidentiality as the mechanism to do so is based on an exact 
spelling of the customer's name. Further, other vital data such 
as commodity description and transportation details remain 
public.

                        Aiding the Counterfeiter

    Those involved in trafficking of counterfeit goods or 
services will find favor with the provisions cited in the 
Anticounterfeiting Act. Not only will this amendment provide 
little assistance in the interdiction of counterfeit goods but 
it will furnish valuable trademark data that can be used to 
create useful marketing summary information that will enable 
counterfeiters and thieves to work smarter and more 
efficiently.
    Simple analysis of air cargo manifest data outfits the 
counterfeiter with very useful market information such as 
current product popularity, consumer preferences, potential 
future products, and other market trends. The result is the 
counterfeiter will do what he or she is doing today only better 
and smarter, with enhanced accuracy. For example, someone 
interested in pirating a legitimate product needs only to view 
public manifest data that bears trademark information to see 
which goods are currently popular in the market place.

                     Air Carrier Development Costs

    Cargo manifest regulations have never obligated air 
carriers to report shipment trademark information. Therefore, 
carriers do not posses the ability to capture, manage and 
report this level of information. Cargo reservation and 
tracking system modifications required to comply with the law 
would result in unrecoverable development costs totaling in the 
millions of dollars. That expense, without benefit to the 
customer or the carrier, cannot be justified. Moreover, in the 
interest of maintaining the highest possible level of cargo 
security, it is questionable that shippers would willingly 
provide trademark information to air carriers and other 
transportation entities.

                               Conclusion

    As the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 
cites organized crime activity as one of the principal concerns 
of counterfeiting, it must look at the potential misuse of 
public manifest data. Clearly the likelihood of increased 
criminal activity, fostering of corporate espionage and 
augmenting the counterfeiter's capabilities outweigh the hoped 
for achievements by the Act. Other options to achieve secure 
marketing opportunities for legitimate businesses while at the 
same time protecting the transportation industry from criminal 
activity must be given a chance to be explored.
    As most of the data required in the Act, except trademark 
information, is provided to U.S. Customs in a secure 
environment today, the air industry is not overly concerned 
with data elements. It is public access to which strongly 
object. Further, the Act does not state how owners of 
copyrighted and trademarked products would use the information 
and why public access is necessary to achieve the objective. 
Opening manifest data to the universe so that a select group 
can review it for its own purposes will produce a Pandora's box 
of issues.
    Furthermore, the owners of trademark and copyright products 
have never approached the air cargo industry to investigate a 
cooperative and coordinated effort to prevent the 
transportation of counterfeit goods. At a minimum, the 
opportunity to explore mutually beneficial strategies needs to 
takes place before laws and regulations are passed. Clearly 
this is not the case with the events leading to Public Law 104-
153, and the notice of proposed rule making imposing the needs 
of one industry on another is premature and unwarranted.
    It is therefore ATA's recommendation that representatives 
of the owners or authorized users of trademarks and air cargo 
industry representatives establish a working group to address 
these issues. Industries working together can create a balanced 
solution that achieves mutually beneficial results. One 
possible solution is that trademark owners work directly with 
Customs in private as needed to review manifest data rather 
than implement total public access.
    We would be pleased to head up this working group and to 
discuss these comments and recommendations in more detail. ATA 
looks forward to working with the trademark industry and 
government agencies to improve counterfeiting detection while 
maintaining a secure information environment.
            Respectfully submitted:
               Air Transport Association of America
                                       William Van Deventer
                                       Director, Cargo Facilitation

Dated: August 15, 1997

Communications regarding this testimony should be addressed to: William 
Van Deventer, Director, Cargo Facilitation, 202-626-4216 or Janet 
Thomas, Director, Passenger Facilitation, 202-626-4236

                                

      

Comments of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association

    The American Automobile Manufacturers Association 
(``AAMA'') and its member companies--Chrysler Corporation, Ford 
Motor Company and General Motors Corporation--appreciate the 
opportunity to comment on several pieces of legislation which 
would correct certain technical deficiencies in recently 
enacted trade legislation.
    Three pieces of legislation which the Subcommittee is 
considering are of particular interest to AAMA. The first bill 
would amend section 505(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1505(c)) to clarify that Customs must refund interest payable 
on refunds of duty arising from NAFTA claims under 19 U.S.C. 
1520(d) for the full period from the date of payment to the 
Government to the date of liquidation. Under current law, 
Customs is required to refund interest only for the period from 
the date of filing the claim to the date of liquidation.
    Section 505(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1505(c)), as amended by section 642 of Customs Modernization 
Act (enacted as Title VI of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act), sets forth the rules for 
calculating interest on underpayments and overpayment of 
duties, fees and taxes arising out of the importation of 
merchandise. With respect to overpayments, prior to enactment 
of Public Law 104-295 last year, the law provided that interest 
on the deposited duties, fees and taxes accrued from the date 
of deposit to the date of liquidation or reliquidation of the 
entries in question.
    Section 2 of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1996, Public Law 104-295, amended section 
1505(c) to provide an exception with respect to the payment of 
interest for a single class of overpayments; monies paid on 
goods that are later determined to be eligible for NAFTA 
preferential tariffs. For these overpayments interest runs from 
the date on which the claim for the preferential tariff was 
filed to the date of liquidation or reliquidation.
    The proposed legislation would reverse the change that 
resulted from the amendment made by Public Law 104-295. The 
amendment upset a fair and equitable arrangement in which both 
importers and the Government were placed on equal footing when 
it came to paying interest. Moreover, the law does not permit 
importers to claim the NAFTA tariff preference until the 
importer has a certificate of origin in its possession. Thus, 
at the time of entry, the importer is required to post the full 
duties on the merchandise and the Government has full use of 
that money until it is refunded. There is nothing that 
distinguishes a refund of duties arising from a valid claim for 
a NAFTA preference from the refund of duties arising from any 
other valid claim. The provision would reinstate the original 
language.
    AAMA member companies often file valid claims for the NAFTA 
preferential duties after merchandise is imported. 
Consequently, our members are not being paid interest for the 
full period that the Government has the use of their money. 
AAMA supports this corrective legislation.
    The second bill amends section 520(d) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)), relating to goods qualifying under 
NAFTA rules of origin, to clarify that merchandise processing 
fees (MPFs) may be refunded along with excess duties if NAFTA-
eligibility is proved.
    Sections 201 and 202 of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 
provide a tariff preference for qualifying goods. Section 204 
of the Act exempts Canadian-origin goods, and after June 29, 
1999, Mexican-origin goods, from customs user fees (19 U.S.C. 
58c). Section 206 of the Act added Section 520(d) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)). It authorizes the Customs 
Service to reliquidate an entry to refund any ``excess duties'' 
paid on a good qualifying under the rules of origin for which 
no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made at the time 
of importation. Customs takes the position that the reference 
to ``excess duties'' precludes it from refunding the customs 
user fees that were paid at the time of entry, even though the 
exemption from fees, like the claim for preferential tariff 
treatment, could not have been made at that time. The 
legislation makes clear that the Customs Service is authorized 
to refund any fees imposed under 19 U.S.C. 58c that were paid 
at the time of entry.
    In a ruling issued by the Customs Service, the agency took 
the position that the term ``excess duties'' in section 520(d) 
should be construed to exclude the refund of customs user fees. 
Customs has interpreted the law in a way that is inconsistent 
with the clear Congressional mandate that neither duties nor 
customs user fees are payable on imported Canadian goods that 
qualify for the NAFTA preference (and, in the future, Mexican 
goods that so qualify). The amendment would leave no doubt that 
such fees may be refunded pursuant to a claim filed under 
section 520(d).
    AAMA member companies import more goods subject to NAFTA 
preferential tariff treatment than any other industry and file 
more post-importation claims for refunds of duties and MPFs. 
Customs position that MPFs are not refundable is depriving each 
company of a very significant amount of money. Thus, AAMA 
supports this legislation which would clarify the law.
    The third bill would amend section 514(a) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514(a)) to ensure that if an importer is 
entitled to a NAFTA tariff preference, there is a method for 
obtaining a refund of duties paid at the time of entry. Under 
the bill, the NAFTA tariff preference and exemption from 
customs user fees under 19 U.S.C. 58c would be listed as one of 
the specific categories of decisions that an importer may 
protest.
    Under 19 U.S.C 1514, decisions of the Customs Service are 
final and conclusive on all persons, including the United 
States, unless a protest is filed. However, Customs has taken 
the position with respect to post-importation claims for the 
tariff preference under NAFTA, that the protest procedure under 
section 514 is not available to importers; that the only 
available remedy is to file a claim for a refund under section 
520(d).
    Traditionally, the liquidation or reliquidation of any 
entry embodies all Customs decisions, including the 
admissibility of the goods, and the correctness of the 
valuation, classification, rate and amount of duty, and 
entitlement to a tariff preference. Even where Customs' 
decision is based on information provided by the importer, the 
liquidation or reliquidation may be protested. The filing of a 
protest prevents the liquidation from becoming final. Customs' 
position that the protest procedure is not available to 
importers who do not claim the NAFTA tariff preference at the 
time of entry is questionable. Existing section 520(d), added 
to the law by the NAFTA Implementation Act, begins with the 
statement, ``Notwithstanding the fact that a valid protest was 
not filed, the Customs Service may reliquidate an entry to 
refund any excess duties . . . .'' This statement has been 
interpreted in other instances to mean that, if a valid protest 
was filed, Customs could have considered and allowed the 
importer's claim under the protest procedure. The amendment to 
section 514 make absolutely clear that section 514 is the 
primary remedy available to importers for making post-
importations NAFTA preference claims, and that section 520(d) 
is, like section 520(c), an extraordinary remedy that may be 
used when a liquidation has become final and the protest 
procedure is not available.
    Although AAMA members generally have no problem obtaining 
refunds of duties using the 520(d) procedure, there are 
instances when the required certificate of origin is received 
more than a year after importation, thus precluding the filing 
of a 520(d) claim. Where a certificate of origin establishes 
that the Government is not entitled to the duties paid at the 
time of entry, there should be a method for obtaining a refund 
of those duties. Thus, AAMA supports this amendment which would 
make clear that the protest procedure under section 514 could 
be used to obtain a refund of such duties.

                                

      
                         American Watch Association        
Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks  
                                                           
                 International Anticounterfeiting Coalition
                                                    August 15, 1997
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments on Item 7 of Miscellaneous Corrections to Trade 
        Legislation and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

  Members of IACC, COPIAT and AWA Strongly Oppose any Legislation to 
      Limit or Repeal the Manifest Disclosure Requirements of the 
                        Anticounterfeiteing Act.

    We are writing on behalf of the International 
Anticounterfeiting Coalition (``IACC''), the Coalition to 
Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks (``COPIAT''), and 
the American Watch Association (``AWA'') to oppose the manifest 
disclosure legislation referenced in item 7 of the Proposed 
Miscellaneous Corrections. Specifically, item 7 states the 
following--
    ``Section 431 of the Tariff Act of 1930 outlines the 
requirements for public disclosure of manifest information. On 
July 2, 1996, the President signed the Anticounterfeiting and 
Consumer Protection Act of 1996 [P.L. 104-153], which amended 
section 431(c)(1) to require public disclosure of vessel and 
aircraft manifest information, as well as additional 
requirements as to the content of such information. On October 
11, 1996, the President signed into law the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 [P.L. 104-295], which 
amended section 431(c)(1) to require public disclosure of 
vessel manifest information only, and makes no additions to the 
law regarding the content of such information. Given the 
potentially conflicting interpretations of these laws, 
legislation may be needed to clarify that the language 
contained in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act of 1996 reflects Congressional intent.'' (emphasis added)
    Contrary to the statement made in the final sentence of 
item 7, any amendment that would prohibit public disclosure of 
aircraft manifests or trademark information under section 
431(c)(1) of the Tariff Act or eliminate the new Customs entry 
documentation requirements under section 484(d)(2) would 
directly contravene clear Congressional intent under the 
Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 (the 
``Anticounterfeiting Act'').

   The Anticounterfeiting Act Reflects Clear Congressional Intent to 
  Combat Counterfeit Imports through Disclosure of Air Manifests and 
        Trademark Information Appearing on Imported Merchandise.

    The Anticounterfeiting Act amended Section 431(c)(1) of the 
Tariff Act \1\ to require the Customs Service to disclose 
aircraft manifests, in addition to sea vessel manifests, and to 
disclose the trademark information contained in such manifests. 
As a related measure, the Act also amended section 484(d)(2) of 
the Tariff Act \2\ to require importers to disclose on entry 
documentation any information necessary to determine whether 
imported merchandise bears an infringing trademark, including 
the trademarks appearing on goods or packaging. Both amendments 
to the Tariff Act reflect Congress's clear and well-reasoned 
decision to facilitate identification of counterfeit imports by 
increasing public access to Customs import information. To 
repeal these recent amendments--and thereby override clear 
Congressional intent--in the context of a technical corrections 
law would be wholly inappropriate without opportunity for 
debate and public hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 19 U.S.C.Sec. 1431(c)(1).
    \2\ 19 U.S.C.Sec. 1484(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 2, 1996, the President signed the 
Anticounterfeiting Act following unanimous approval by the 
House and Senate. This law represents the most important 
anticounterfeiting legislation in over a decade, significantly 
strengthening the remedies and enforcement tools available to 
combat counterfeit imports, including increased public access 
to manifest information filed by importers of potentially 
infringing goods. IACC, COPIAT and AWA, which each represent 
many of America's leading manufacturers, strongly endorsed the 
Anticounterfeiting Act, as did the International Trademark 
Association, the Business Software Alliance, the National 
Consumers League and several other associations and 
manufacturers. Over the past several years, IACC, COPIAT and 
AWA have actively promoted laws, regulations and directives 
designed to render theft of intellectual property undesirable 
and unprofitable.
    Congress enacted the Anticounterfeiting Act to combat what 
has become a multi-billion dollar parasite on legitimate U.S. 
businesses, workers and taxpayers and a continuing source of 
consumer injury. In the legislative history accompanying the 
Anticounterfeiting Act, the House Judiciary Committee reported 
that counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses more than $200 
billion each year. Much of the counterfeit trade is now 
operated through the same crime syndicates involved in drug 
smuggling, prostitution and illegal arms sales. For these 
organized criminals, counterfeiting represents a low-risk and 
highly profitable source of illegal income, as well as a 
convenient channel to launder proceeds from other illegal 
activities.
    Counterfeiting also poses very serious dangers to the 
consumer. Counterfeit automobile and aircraft parts have been 
linked to fatal crashes. Consumer injuries have also resulted 
from sales of counterfeit shampoos, pharmaceuticals, and toys. 
One of the more recent and disturbing cases of criminal 
counterfeiting involved the distribution of counterfeit baby 
formula.
    Despite the growing seriousness of the problem, the laws 
and resources available prior to the Anticounterfeiting Act 
were completely inadequate to halt the flow of counterfeit 
imports. Because of limited resources and despite its best 
efforts, the U.S. Customs Service was able to stop only a small 
fraction of the counterfeit merchandise imported into the 
United States each year. In addition, while criminal penalties 
existed, the deterrent effect was minimal because federal 
prosecutors rarely initiated criminal counterfeiting actions. 
Finally, trademark and copyright owners, who regularly invest 
millions of dollars in private enforcement actions, often could 
not obtain the Customs information necessary to identify 
counterfeit imports.
    By enacting the Anticounterfeiting Act, Congress sought to 
remedy each of these defects in existing law, including 
inadequate disclosure of Customs import information. Congress 
approved the Tariff Act amendments in order to facilitate both 
Customs and private enforcement against counterfeiters through 
greater disclosure of the information necessary to identify 
potentially infringing imports.

 The Disclosure of Air Manifests and Trademark Information Is Critical 
       to the Identification and Seizure of Counterfeit Imports.

    IACC, COPIAT and AWA members rely heavily on the manifest 
disclosure requirements of Section 431(c)(1) of the Tariff Act 
to protect their intellectual property rights and the consumer 
against counterfeit imports. The manifest information compiled 
and published by trade publications is often the manufacturer's 
only notice that infringing imports have entered the United 
States, and their only opportunity to prevent distribution 
throughout the country.
    Despite the critical importance of manifest information to 
anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts, the Customs Service 
has limited disclosure in at least two important respects: (i) 
by narrowly interpreting Section 431(c)(1) of the Tariff Act to 
require disclosure of sea manifests only (See 19 C.F.R. 
Sec. 103.14); and (ii) by not requiring importers to disclose 
the specific trademarks appearing on imported goods or 
packaging (See Customs Form 3461 (``Entry/Immediate 
Delivery'')).

Air manifest disclosure under Section 431(c)(1):

    Prior to the Anticounterfeiting Act, Section 431 read as 
follows--
    ``(a) In general.
    Every vessel required to make entry under Section 1434 of 
this title or obtain clearance under section 91 of the Appendix 
to Title 46 shall have a manifest that complies with the 
requirements prescribed under subsection (d) of this section.
    (b) Production of manifest
    Any manifest required by the Customs Service shall be 
signed, produced, delivered or electronically transmitted by 
the master or person in charge of the vessel, aircraft, or 
vehicle . . . in accordance with the requirements prescribed 
under subsection (d) of this section . . . If any irregularity 
or omission or commission occurs in any way in respect to any 
manifest or bill of lading data, the owner or operator of the 
vessel, aircraft or vehicle . . . shall be liable for any fine 
or penalty prescribed by law with respect to such irregularity 
. . .
    (c) Public disclosure of information.
    (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the following 
information, when contained in such manifest, shall be 
available for public disclosure.'' (emphasis added) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Subsection (c)(2) denies disclosure upon an appropriate finding 
of confidentiality; subsection (d) authorizes Customs to prescribe by 
regulation the form of the manifest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Customs Service historically has construed the phrase 
``such manifest'' in Section 431(c)(1) to mean a sea vessel 
manifest, even though the reference to ``vessel, aircraft or 
vehicle'' manifests in subsection (b) arguably warrants a 
broader interpretation. In fact, the different treatment 
between sea and air manifests is without self-evident 
justification or statutory support. Certainly, nothing in the 
respective natures of sea as opposed to air transport suggests 
a basis for disparate treatment. Moreover, the legislative 
history to Section 431(c)(1) fails to distinguish between sea 
and air manifests, suggesting that the omission of the word 
``aircraft'' results from historical artifact, inadvertent 
omission or both. From an enforcement perspective, the failure 
to dislose air manifests has left a gaping hole in border 
control and provided counterfeiters with a ``safe'' means of 
transport into the country.
    Nevertheless, the Customs Service has steadfastly refused 
to deviate from its narrow interpretation of Section 431(c)(1), 
despite the compelling policy reasons for doing so. Indeed, 
prior to the Anticounterfeiting Act, COPIAT members petitioned 
the Customs Service to amend its regulations to permit air 
manifest disclosure. The Customs Service rejected the petition, 
arguing (unconvincingly in COPIAT's view) that the Service 
lacked the statutory authority to make such a regulatory 
change.

Customs entry disclosure:

    Similarly, COPIAT petitioned Customs to modify its customs 
entry documentation to require disclosure of trademark and 
other information necessary to identify counterfeit imports 
(and deter counterfeiters). (At present, importers are required 
to disclose only the generic category of goods.) The requested 
change could easily have been accomplished through minor 
revisions to current documentation. Nevertheless, the Customs 
Service again refused the request, arguing that the 
administrative costs and burdens of implementing the proposal 
outweighed the potential benefits.
    Accordingly, IACC, COPIAT and AWA sought disclosure of air 
manifests and trademark information under the 
Anticounterfeiting Act. Prior to enactment, the Senate and 
House Judiciary Committees carefully considered the proposed 
amendments to the Tariff Act and unanimously decided that the 
benefits of improved enforcement--in terms of consumer health 
and safety, law enforcement, and intellectual property 
protection--more than justified the relatively minor increase 
in administrative costs and burden.
    Significantly, the Customs Service reviewed the 
Anticounterfeiting bill in its entirety prior to the Senate and 
House hearings and failed to submit any comments or testimony 
opposing the manifest disclosure requirements. In fact, a 
Customs official, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of 
Investigations Leonard S. Walton, testified in support of the 
Anticounterfeiting bill during both hearings. Similarly, it is 
our recollection that, prior to the enactment of the 
Anticounterfeiting bill, John Bliss, President of the IACC, met 
with and personally discussed all provisions of the bill 
(including the manifest disclosure requirements) with Steve 
Whittaker, trade counsel for House Ways and Means Trade 
Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Philip Crane.

  The Miscellaneous Trade Act Does Not Affect Congressional Intent to 
Require Disclosure of Air Manifests and Trademark Information under the 
Anticounterfeiting Act. Thus, the Proposed Amendments to the Tariff Act 
                   Are Unnecessary and Inappropriate.

    Given Congress' unanimous and carefully considered decision 
to require increased manifest disclosure, it is unclear why the 
Miscellaneous Trade Act retained the Section 431(c)(1) 
amendment, particularly since the Trade Act does nothing to 
alter the effect of the Anticounterfeiting Act. The 
Miscellaneous Trade Act amendment does nothing more than add 
the word ``vessel'' to Section 431(c)(1) without limiting the 
disclosure of ``aircraft'' manifests or the trademark 
information contained in aircraft or vessel manifests. 
Moreover, the Miscellaneous Trade Act makes no change 
whatsoever to the new entry documentation requirements of 
Section 484(d)(2). Accordingly, it could not have been 
Congress' intent to repeal the Anticounterfeiting Act 
amendment, as suggested by the House Ways and Means Committee 
Advisory.
    To the contrary, the Anticounterfeiting Act remains the 
definitive statement of Congressional intent with respect to 
Sections 431(c)(1) and 484(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. As evidence 
of this, the United States Code Service gave full effect to the 
Anticounterfeiting Act amendments when publishing these revised 
sections of the Tariff Act.
    Following enactment of the Miscellaneous Trade Act, the 
House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property took 
immediate steps to address and conclusively resolve any 
conflict between the Anticounterfeiting Act and the 
Miscellaneous Trade Act. Specifically, Chairman Carlos Moorhead 
on December 4, 1996 sent a letter (attached as Exhibit 1) to 
Commissioner of Customs George Weise to confirm Congressional 
intent to require public disclosure of aircraft manifests. The 
letter directed Commissioner Weise to construe the 
Miscellaneous Trade Act amendment to Section 431(c)(1) as a 
``minor change that should not affect the interpretation of the 
Anticounterfeiting Law.'' The letter further stated--
    ``However, to the extent that there is any ambiguity, I can 
assure you that it was the intent of the Congress in passing 
the Anticounterfeiting bill that the public disclosure of 
certain manifest information applies to both aircraft and 
vessel manifests. This issue was fully explored at the 
Subcommittee hearing held on December 7, 1995. After careful 
consideration, the Members of the Subcommittee, and ultimately 
the entire Congress, voted unanimously to approve the bill with 
that provision. Although it could possibly lead to slightly 
higher administrative costs of record keeping, Members of 
Congress clearly believed that this potential cost is more than 
outweighed by the benefits of better enforcement.'' (emphasis 
added)
    On June 9, 1997, the new Chairman of the Intellectual 
Subcommittee Howard Coble, together with full Committee 
Chairman Hyde and other Members of Congress, sent a second 
letter to Commissioner Weise (attached as Exhibit 2), 
confirming once again Congressional intent to require air 
manifest disclosure, as well as the disclosure of trademarks on 
entry documentation. This second letter also reminded 
Commissioner Weise of the Service's obligation under the 
Anticounterfeiting Act to promulgate implementing regulations.
    The House Ways and Means Committee Advisory now suggests 
under item 7 that the Miscellaneous Trade Act might be 
construed as a deliberate decision by Congress to override 
these important, substantive provisions of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act. Clearly, this interpretation of the 
Miscellaneous Trade Act does not reflect Congressional intent, 
nor can it be justified on the basis of statutory language or 
any other grounds. Moreover, in the absence of hearings or 
formal consideration of the issue, a technical corrections law 
is not the appropriate vehicle to propose what constitutes a 
controversial amendment that clearly contravenes prior 
Congressional intent.
    Accordingly, IACC, COPIAT and AWA urge the House Ways and 
Means Committee to abandon the legislative proposal referenced 
in item 7. In addition, to avoid any further debate or doubt 
regarding Congressional intent, we ask the Committee to repeal 
the amendment to Section 431(c)(1) under the Miscellaneous 
Trade Act.
    We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
legislation.
            Very truly yours,
                                   Charles E. Buffon
                                   Laurie C. Self
                                           Counsel to COPIAT & AWA
                                   John S. Bliss
                                           President of IACC
                                   Emilio G. Collado
                                           Executive Director of COPIAT 
                                               & AWA

    [The attachments follow:]








                                

Comments of Eastman Kodak Company

    1. The Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 provisions on information 
     disclosure should remain in the law and should be implemented.

    Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) submits this statement in 
support of vigorous implementation of the air manifest 
provisions of the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 
1996, (Pub. L. No. 104-153, 110 Stat. 1386 (1996)), and against 
the proposed amendment suggested in Item 7 of the Proposed 
Miscellaneous Corrections in the Committee's Advisory of June 
30, 1997, No. TR-10. The Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 amended 
19 U.S.C. Sec. 1431(c)(1) to require public disclosure of 
aircraft as well as vessel manifest information and to specify 
additional information (including trademarks on goods or 
packages) to be disclosed when contained in a manifest. These 
amendments were designed to enhance protection for intellectual 
property in the form of trademarks, an objective consistent 
with the U.S. Government's increased recognition of the 
importance of intellectual property to U.S. competitiveness.
    Kodak recognizes that another bill, the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 1996, (Pub. L. No. 104-295, 
110 Stat 3514 (1996)) touched on the manifest issue. However, 
the specific provision of the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 
requiring disclosure of air manifest information reflected 
Congressional intent, and the Miscellaneous Trade bill did not 
alter this mandate. Accordingly, we strongly disagree with the 
suggestion in Item 7 of the Committee Advisory that 
``legislation may be needed to clarify that the language 
contained in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act of 1996 reflects Congressional intent.'' As explained 
below, further amendment is unnecessary.
    While there may be differing views from our own on this 
issue, we submit that a technical corrections bill would be an 
inappropriate vehicle for addressing those differences, since 
the change suggested in Item 7 of the Advisory is not 
uncontroversial.

2. The disclosure provisions of the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 are 
  necessary for effective Customs Service enforcement and to protect 
       trademarks and their contribution to U.S. competitiveness.

    The defense of U.S. industry against trademark 
counterfeiting is essential to the competitiveness and strength 
of our economy. If counterfeiting is tolerated, the efforts of 
companies that have built a reputation for excellence are 
unfairly undercut by producers and purveyors of low quality 
knockoffs. It is now universally understood that U.S. 
competitiveness rests on solid protection for the intellectual 
property of U.S. citizens and firms.
    Kodak is the leading manufacturer of consumer imaging 
products, with a brand-name recognized worldwide. That 
universal recognition requires us to be on guard against 
counterfeiters who frequently seek to misappropriate our 
trademarks and mislead our customers with fraudulent products. 
Previously, U.S. law did not provide law enforcement officials 
with sufficiently adequate tools to confront this problem 
effectively, nor did it provide us with the ability to obtain 
sufficient information necessary to assist enforcement 
officials. In fact, the anomaly that sea cargo manifest 
information, but not air manifest information, was disclosed 
has often led counterfeiters to exploit this loophole by using 
aircraft as their transportation means of choice. The 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 addressed this situation, among 
others. We were particularly pleased with the Act's expanded 
Customs reporting requirements.
    Kodak and other firms supported the disclosure provisions 
of the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 in order to achieve the 
same public disclosure of air cargo manifest information as 
previously required for sea cargo manifests and to have 
shippers specify the trademarks appearing on the goods or 
packages. It is generally understood that enforcement by the 
Customs Service against infringing products requires the 
cooperation of industry. Kodak has cooperated with U.S. Customs 
whenever questionable shipments were discovered, to help keep 
goods with counterfeit trademarks from entering the country. 
The new information required to be disclosed under the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 would further assist us in our 
work with Customs to identify counterfeit merchandise and the 
location of the counterfeiters.

     3. Congressional intent to strengthen information disclosure 
        requirements to protect trademarks is reflected in the 
      Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 and was not disturbed by the 
                        Miscellaneous Trade Act.

    Item 7 of the Committee's Advisory implies that there is a 
question whether Congressional intent on disclosure of 
information is reflected in the provisions of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 requiring disclosure of air 
manifest information. We believe that the Anticounterfeiting 
Act of 1996 does express Congressional intent.
    Apparently, for historical reasons, the Customs Service 
routinely disclosed information on goods shipped by sea but not 
by air. There was no evident policy basis for drawing this 
distinction. We believe that the matter could have been 
corrected administratively, but Congress put the question 
beyond doubt by enacting the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 
amendment explicitly adding to the law a reference to 
disclosure of air manifest information.
    The original law stated that certain information, ``when 
contained in such manifest, shall be available for public 
disclosure.'' The Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 added the 
phrase ``vessel or aircraft'' before the word ``manifest'' to 
make clear that disclosure is required of information when 
contained in a ``vessel or aircraft manifest.'' (Pub. L. No. 
104-153, Sec. 11, 110 Stat. 1386 (1996)). A technical provision 
of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
1996 directed the substitution of ``a vessel manifest'' for 
``such manifest.'' (Pub. L. No. 104-295, Sec. 3, 110 Stat. 3514 
(1996). This provision had an effective date of December 8, 
1993, prior to Pub. L. No. 104-153, Sec. 11, 110 Stat. 1386 
(1996)). The Congressional intent reflected in the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 to require disclosure of air 
manifest information was not disturbed by the amending process. 
The statute has been codified in the United States Code 
Annotated as providing that the specified information ``when 
contained in a vessel manifest or aircraft manifest, shall be 
available for public disclosure.'' (See 19 U.S.C.A. 
Sec. 1431(c)(1) (Supp. 1997) and accompanying note on 
Codification).
    Whether the imprecision of the amendment contained in the 
Miscellaneous Trade bill was inadvertent or reflected an 
ineffective attempt to achieve a different result, when the 
dust settled, it remained that disclosure of air manifest 
information is what Congress intended and what is required. (In 
support of this conclusion regarding Congressional intent, see 
also the attached letters from Congressional sponsors of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996.) Accordingly, the issue of a 
possible conflict between the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 
and the Miscellaneous Trade Act raised in Item 7 of the 
Committee Advisory should not arise, and the question implied 
in Item 7 whether legislation is needed to reflect some intent 
on information disclosure other than that of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 must be answered in the 
negative.
    We note also that the Miscellaneous Trade Act did not 
address at all the new requirements added by the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 relating to the disclosure of 
additional information (including trademarks on goods or 
packages) contained in a manifest. (See e.g., 19 U.S.C.A. 
Sec. 1431(c)(1)(H) (Supp. 1997); 19 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1484(d)(2) 
(Supp. 1997)). Therefore, for this additional reason, if Item 7 
of the Committee Advisory was intended to pose the question of 
whether there is a need for legislation on this issue, the 
answer should also be in the negative.

 4. Nullification of the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996's strengthened 
    disclosure requirements should not be considered on a technical 
                           corrections bill.

    Those who believe that the statute should not require 
disclosure of air manifest information are, of course, free to 
pursue normal channels to make their case for change. Such 
normal channels would entail full Congressional deliberations 
in which Kodak and others would again make the case for 
disclosure. At the end of that process, we are confident that 
Congress would again conclude that the approach of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 was correct and would reject any 
effort to delete from the law the requirement to disclose air 
manifest information. However, consistent with normal practice, 
we hope the Committee will agree that it is inappropriate to 
include such a controversial proposal in the technical, 
Miscellaneous Corrections legislation which is the subject of 
the Committee's Advisory of June 30, 1997.

                               Conclusion

    Protection of trademarks from the predations of 
counterfeiters is vital to the health of American industry and 
the American economy. The law is designed to prevent the 
erosion of incentives for industry efforts to establish and 
maintain a reputation for excellence. The more successful 
American companies are, the more we become targets for 
counterfeiters who seek to misappropriate our trademarks and to 
mislead our customers with fraudulent products. Success in the 
global marketplace, therefore, makes protection of U.S. 
trademarks all the more important. Disclosure of air manifest 
information with the contents specified in the law, as amended 
by the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996, is a vital part of the 
regime protecting trademarks and the benefit to both the U.S. 
economy and American consumers that flows from properly branded 
products. Efforts to defeat the Congressional intent underlying 
the Anticounterfeiting Act of 1996 should be rejected and 
vigorous implementation of the Act should proceed.
    [The attachments follow:]







                                

                International Trademark Association        
                                      Washington Office    
                                     Washington, D.C. 20036
                                                    August 15, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The International Trademark Association (INTA) is responding to 
your Subcommittee's request for comment on Proposal Number # 7 in your 
June 30 press release, which would eliminate a provision of the 
Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 that relates to the 
public disclosure of aircraft manifests. In keeping with INTA's support 
for the entire Act during the 104th Congress, we urge that you take no 
action to remove the aircraft manifest provision.
    INTA is a 119 year-old not-for-profit organization with over 3,400 
members in 120 countries. Membership in INTA is open to trademark 
owners and those who serve trademark owners in their efforts to avoid 
confusion, deception and unfair trade practices in commerce.. Our 
members include corporations, law firms, advertising agencies, and 
professional and trade associations. Despite this diversity, all of 
INTA's members share a common interest in trademarks and a recognition 
of the importance of trademarks to their owners, to the general public, 
and to the economy of the United States.
    While INTA is sympathetic to those in the airline industry who are 
concerned about the delays which might be caused by the public 
disclosure of aircraft manifests, we are concerned about the fact that 
counterfeiting of intellectual property remains a $200 billion world-
wide industry. The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 
continues to represent a positive step forward in the efforts of the 
public and private sector to combat pirates who prey on the good names 
of American companies.
    Proof of the Act's success can be found in a report on the results 
of a nationwide law enforcement crackdown on trademark and copyright 
fraud released in May, 1997, by the U.S. Department of Justice and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The report states that 35 
indictments were returned in April and May of 1997, and, to date, three 
individuals have been convicted of conspiracy and trafficking in goods 
bearing infringing trademarks. In April alone, eight persons pleaded 
guilty to more than 20 counts of criminal trademark and copyright 
violations.
    The air manifest disclosure provision is an important element of 
the Act. It was the clear intent of Congress to include this provision, 
as the following Senate Committee Report language indicates:
    ``Under current law, the U.S. Customs Service routinely discloses 
information relating to the nature of shipments imported by sea. This 
information has proven to be extremely valuable to U.S. trademark 
holders who are trying to trace or interdict the entry of counterfeit 
goods.
    ``Additional authority is needed, however, to disclose the same 
information for shipments by air. Since most low-weight, high value 
counterfeits are shipped by air, trademark owners need access to air 
shipment data as well as sea shipment data if they are to be able to 
better assist enforcement officials in identifying counterfeiters and 
stopping the flow of fraudulent goods transported in this manner. 
Moreover, this provision eliminates the unwarranted and out-of-date 
distinction between information required about goods shipped by sea as 
compared to goods shipped by air [emphasis added].''
    If the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act is to remain an 
effective weapon, then all of its components, including the public 
disclosure of aircraft manifests, must stay firmly in place. We cannot 
afford to give away any ground to those who would seek to steal the 
good names of American companies that have worked so hard to establish 
a reputation of quality and consistency.
    In any event, a substantive change to the Anticounterfeiting Act of 
this kind should not be considered as part of a process reserved for 
noncontroversial, technical trade measures. The ramifications of this 
proposal are far-reaching and impact the effectiveness of the 
Anticounterfeiting Act. It is not a mere technical clarification. Nor 
is it noncontroversial.
    Should you have any questions or comments concerning INTA's 
position on this or any other trademark issue, please contact Jon Kent, 
INTA's Washington Representative, at (202) 223-6222.
    Thank you for considering our submission.
            Sincerely,
                                              David Stimson
                                                          President

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #8

    To amend section 505(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1505(c)) to clarify that Customs must refund interest 
payable on refunds of duty arising from NAFTA claims under 19 
U.S.C. 1520(c) for the full period from the date of payment to 
the Government to the date of liquidation or reliquidation. 
Under current law, Customs is required to refund interest only 
for the period from the date of filing the claim to the date of 
reliquidation.

 see also American Automobile Manufacturers Association under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #7

 see also JBC International under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

                                

Comments of the Joint Industry Group

    The Joint Industry Group (``JIG'') appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on several pieces of legislation which 
would correct certain technical deficiencies in recently 
enacted trade legislation.
    JIG is a coalition of more than 100 companies, trade 
associations, professionals and businesses actively involved in 
international trade. We both examine and reflect the concerns 
of the business community relative to current and proposed 
customs-related policies, actions, legislation and regulations, 
and undertake to improve them through dialogue with the Customs 
Service, other government agencies and the Congress.
    All of the proposed miscellaneous corrections bills for 
which comments were solicited appear to be meritorious and JIG 
supports their passage. Some of the bills have been proposed by 
and would have an immediate benefit to specific industries, 
particularly the two bills that would amend the drawback law, 
19 U.S.C. 1313, but in our view the proposed changes would 
ultimately benefit many importers and would be consistent with 
the changes made to the drawback law by Public Law 103-182. 
Other bills, such as the proposed amendment to 19 U.S.C. 
1515(a) dealing with Customs' consideration of an application 
for further review, and the proposal to require Customs to 
provide no less than a 30 day comment period for regulatory 
changes, would benefit all our members.
    Three pieces of legislation which the Subcommittee is 
considering are of particular interest to our members. The 
first bill would amend section 505(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1505(c)) to clarify that Customs must refund 
interest payable on refunds of duty arising from NAFTA claims 
under section 520(d) (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)) for the period 
beginning on the date of payment to the Government and ending 
on the date of liquidation. Under current law, Customs is 
required to refund interest only for the period beginning on 
the date of filing the claim and ending on the date of 
liquidation.
    Section 505(c) as amended by section 642 of Customs 
Modernization Act (enacted as Title VI of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act), sets forth 
the rules for calculating interest on underpayments and 
overpayment of duties, fees and taxes arising out of the 
importation of merchandise. Prior to enactment of Public Law 
104-295 last year, the law provided that interest on the 
deposited duties, fees and taxes accrued from the date of 
deposit to the date of liquidation or reliquidation of the 
entries in question.
    Section 2 of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1996, Public Law 104-295, amended section 
505(c) to provide an exception with respect to the payment of 
interest for a single class of overpayments; monies paid on 
goods that are later determined to be eligible for NAFTA 
preferential tariffs. For these overpayments interest runs from 
the date on which the claim for the preferential tariff was 
filed to the date of liquidation or reliquidation.
    The proposed legislation would reverse the change that 
resulted from the amendment made by Public Law 104-295. The 
amendment upset a fair and equitable arrangement in which both 
importers and the Government were placed on equal footing when 
it came to paying interest. Moreover, the law does not permit 
importers to claim the NAFTA tariff preference until the 
importer has a certificate of origin in its possession. Thus, 
at the time of entry, the importer is required to post the full 
duties on the merchandise and the Government has full use of 
that money until it is refunded. There is nothing that 
distinguishes a refund of duties arising from a valid claim for 
a NAFTA preference from the refund of duties arising from any 
other valid claim. The provision would reinstate the original 
language.
    JIG members often file valid claims for the NAFTA 
preferential duties after merchandise is imported. 
Consequently, our members are not being paid interest for the 
full period that the Government has the use of their money. JIG 
supports this corrective legislation.
    The second bill amends section 520(d) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)), relating to goods qualifying under 
NAFTA rules of origin, to clarify that merchandise processing 
fees (MPFs) may be refunded along with excess duties if NAFTA-
eligibility is proved.
    Sections 201 and 202 of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 
provide a tariff preference for qualifying goods. Section 204 
of the Act exempts Canadian-origin goods, and after June 29, 
1999, Mexican-origin goods, from customs user fees (19 U.S.C. 
58c). Section 206 of the Act added Section 520(d) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)). It authorizes the Customs 
Service to reliquidate an entry to refund any ``excess duties'' 
paid on a good qualifying under the rules of origin for which 
no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made at the time 
of importation. Customs takes the position that the reference 
to ``excess duties'' precludes it from refunding the customs 
user fees that were paid at the time of entry, even though the 
exemption from fees, like the claim for preferential tariff 
treatment, could not have been made at that time. The 
legislation makes clear that the Customs Service is authorized 
to refund any fees imposed under 19 U.S.C. 58c that were paid 
at the time of entry.
    In a ruling issued by the Customs Service, the agency took 
the position that the term ``excess duties'' in section 520(d) 
should be construed to exclude the refund of customs user fees. 
Customs has interpreted the law in a way that is inconsistent 
with the clear Congressional mandate that neither duties nor 
customs user fees are payable on imported Canadian goods that 
qualify for the NAFTA preference (and, in the future, Mexican 
goods that so qualify). The amendment would leave no doubt that 
such fees may be refunded pursuant to a claim filed under 
section 520(d).
    The third bill would amend section 514(a) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514(a)) to ensure that if an importer is 
entitled to a NAFTA tariff preference, there is a method for 
obtaining a refund of duties paid at the time of entry. Under 
the bill, the NAFTA tariff preference and exemption from 
customs user fees under 19 U.S.C. 58c would be listed as one of 
the specific categories of decisions that an importer may 
protest.
    Under 19 U.S.C 1514, decisions of the Customs Service are 
final and conclusive on all persons, including the United 
States, unless a protest is filed. However, Customs has taken 
the position with respect to post-importation claims for the 
tariff preference under NAFTA, that the protest procedure under 
section 514 is not available to importers; that the only 
available remedy is to file a claim for a refund under section 
520(d).
    Traditionally, the liquidation or reliquidation of any 
entry embodies all Customs decisions, including the 
admissibility of the goods, and the correctness of the 
valuation, classification, rate and amount of duty, and 
entitlement to a tariff preference. Even where Customs' 
decision is based on information provided by the importer, the 
liquidation or reliquidation may be protested. The filing of a 
protest prevents the liquidation from becoming final. Customs' 
position that the protest procedure is not available to 
importers who do not claim the NAFTA tariff preference at the 
time of entry is questionable. Existing section 520(d), added 
to the law by the NAFTA Implementation Act, begins with the 
statement, ``Notwithstanding the fact that a valid protest was 
not filed, the Customs Service may reliquidate an entry to 
refund any excess duties . . . .'' This statement has been 
interpreted in other instances to mean that, if a valid protest 
was filed, Customs could have considered and allowed the 
importer's claim under the protest procedure. The amendment to 
section 514 make absolutely clear that section 514 is the 
primary remedy available to importers for making post-
importations NAFTA preference claims, and that section 520(d) 
is, like section 520(c), an extraordinary remedy that may be 
used when a liquidation has become final and the protest 
procedure is not available.

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #9

    To amend section 520(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1520(d)), relating to goods qualifying under NAFTA rules 
of origin, to clarify that merchandise processing fees (MPFs) 
may be refunded along with excess duties if NAFTA-eligibility 
is proven. Under the NAFTA Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182], 
MPFs are not imposed on goods originating in NAFTA countries. 
To claim a NAFTA preference, an importer must provide a valid 
certificate of origin. In practice, certificates of origin are 
not always available at the time of importation. Importers 
often pay duties and the MPF on a good they know is NAFTA-
eligible, with the expectation that the MPF will be refunded 
later as an excess duty when NAFTA-eligibility is proven. 
Customs has taken the position that MPFs are not refundable 
excess duties under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d).

   see JBC International under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

  see Joint Industry Group under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #8

                                

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #10

    To amend section 514(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1514(a)) to ensure that if an importer is entitled to a 
NAFTA preference, there is a method for obtaining a refund of 
the duties paid at the time of entry. It is a violation of law 
for an importer to claim a NAFTA preference before receiving a 
valid certificate of origin issued by the exporter. Many 
importers do not have a certificate of origin at the time goods 
are entered, and subsequently file post-entry claims when a 
valid certificate of origin is received. If the entry is 
liquidated before receiving a certificate of origin, importers 
generally protest the liquidation under 19 U.S.C. 1514. This 
action prevents the liquidation from becoming final before the 
valid NAFTA-eligibility claim is made. Customs position is that 
protests under 19 U.S.C. 1514 are inapplicable to NAFTA claims, 
that such claims must be filed under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) within 
one year from the date of entry. The provision would clarify 
that importers may use the protest procedure under 19 U.S.C. 
1514 to claim the NAFTA preference.

   see American Automobile Manufacturers Association under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #7

   see JBC International under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #3

  see Joint Industry Group under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #8

  see Stewart and Stewart under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #1

                                

      

Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #11

    To amend 19 U.S.C. 2083 and 19 U.S.C. 2071 to eliminate the 
requirement that Customs provide Congress with three annual 
reports: (1) the Violation Estimates Report, which contains 
estimates on the number and extent of violations of trade, 
customs and illegal drug control laws, and the relative 
incidence of violations estimated among the various ports of 
entries; (2) the Enforcement Strategy Report, which outlines a 
nationally uniform enforcement strategy for dealing with 
violations 90 days after the Violation Estimates Report; and 
(3) the Merchandise Damaged Statistics, which provides 
statistics on the incidence, nature, and extent of damage to 
merchandise resulting from Customs examinations.

  see American Association of Exporters and Importers under Proposed 
                      Miscellaneous Corrections #1

  see Stewart and Stewart under Proposed Miscellaneous Corrections #1

                                

H.R. 1097

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Tinopal CBS-X.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1214

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical P-
Toluenesulfonamide.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1304

    To provide for the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
plastic web sheeting.

                                

                              Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc.    
                                      Mt. Holly Springs, PA
                                                    August 15, 1997
Chairman Bill Archer
House Ways and Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Reference: Public Comment on H.R. 1304

    Dear Mr. Archer:

    I am writing on behalf of Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc., a paper and 
nonwoven roll goods manufacturer in Mt. Holly Springs, PA. We import a 
polyester nonwoven fiber sheet produced by our sister company in France 
which is further processed and converted at our facility and then sold 
in the water filtration market.
    Legislation recently introduced by Rep. Jim Ramstad (H.R. 1304) 
would exempt from duty, a similar product imported by the Japan-based 
Awa Paper Company, our primary competitor. Duty exemption for the 
Japanese product would be a serious barrier to competition for us, as 
our product is technically and economically competitive with the 
product produced by Awa Paper.
    The FilmTec Corporation, an Edina, MN-based subsidiary of Dow 
Chemical, is a major importer of the Awa Paper product. In 1989, 
FilmTec was successful in having this same Japanese product exempted 
from duty under H.R. 1428 during the 101st Congress. At that time, 
FilmTec Corporation argued that there was no comparable quality product 
available in the U.S. As a result, Awa's product was able to gain a 
significant marketing advantage over our products, significantly 
damaging our business. Although FilmTec's claims may have had some 
merit at that time, production and quality enhancements in our product 
have enabled it to become a comparable alternative that is competitive 
in all aspects. Qualitative developments in Ahlstrom's merchandise have 
invalidated FilmTec's ``no comparable product'' argument in today's 
market, and our sales record reflects it.
    Major differences between Ahlstrom and FilmTec's products lie in 
the location of processing. The Awa product used by FilmTec is a 
polyester nonwoven fiber sheet that has been thermally calendered in 
Japan to meet the specific demands for certain filtration products. Our 
product is imported into the U.S. in a ``raw'' state and thermally 
calendered in our Pennsylvania plant before it is applicable for the 
same end use as the Japanese product. After importing the nonwoven 
material in a ``raw'' form, Ahlstrom adds significant value to the 
product by processing it in the U.S. H.R. 1304 does not apply to the 
``raw'' polyester nonwoven fiber sheet, but only to the product that is 
imported into the U.S. in its finished form.
    The product described by the legislative language in H.R. 1304 will 
not apply to our product due to the ``calendered'' provision. The 
uncalendered product we import is currently classified in HTS 
5911.40.000 and we pay a duty rate of 12% (we have a classification 
review pending). The Awa product has recently had a HTS 
reclassification into 5911.40.000 (the same as ours) from 5603.00.000. 
Please note that H.R. 1304 refers to products o be modified to include 
our product in order to provide for equal treatment and competition.
    We have sold more than 1,000,000 yards of our product into the U.S. 
market during the last twelve months. Duty exemption for only the 
Japanese product would cause serious damage to our business in Mt. 
Holly Springs, threatening nearly one-third of our total sales and 
jeopardizing 30 or more jobs.
    Our product and the Japanese-processed product should receive equal 
treatment. Duty exemptions should be granted to both products or 
neither product. While we would enjoy having an advantageous duty 
classification, all we ask for is equal treatment that will allow for 
fair competition based on the attributes and quality of the product. We 
only seek to ensure a level playing field in our market that does not 
provide significant artificial benefits to any party.
            Sincerely,
                                              Kelly Rennels
                                             Director of Technology

                                

H.R. 1548

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on Diiodomethyl-
p-tolylsulfone.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1606

    To suspend temporarily the duty on carbamic acid (U-9069).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1607

    To suspend temporarily the duty on rimsulfuron.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1677

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1678

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Para ethyl phenol (PEP).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1742

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain viscose rayon 
yarn.

                                

                                    Hoechst Corporation    
                                       Washington, DC 20005
                                                    August 15, 1997
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing for the official record to express opposition to the 
following miscellaneous tariff bills currently being reviewed by the 
Ways & Means Committee.
    H.R. 1954
    H.R. 1742
    H.R. 1888
    H.R. 2148
    The specific yarns covered under these various bills are like and 
directly competitive products to items manufactured in the United 
States by Celanese Acetate, a member of the Hoechst group. As a result, 
the temporary elimination of these tariffs would hamper the ability of 
domestic manufacturers to compete in our own home market. In addition, 
tariffs on these same items remain prohibitive in several lucrative 
foreign markets such as the Peoples Republic of China. It is our strong 
belief that the U.S should not lower or eliminate tariff on These 
products until commensurate duty reductions are obtained from major 
trading partners.
    Thank you for your consideration of our views in regard to these 
bills, and if we can provide you with any additional information please 
do not hesitate to contact me.
            Sincerely,
                                            W. Anthony Shaw
                                    Government Relations Department

TS/sb

                                

Comments of ICF Industries, Inc. of New York, New York

    Chairman Archer and Members of the Committee:
    ICF Industries, Inc. (``ICF'') very much appreciates the 
opportunity to comment in detail on proposed duty suspension 
legislation that is vital to the interests of several important 
U.S. industries and many U.S. companies.
    ICF is a U.S. merchant distributor of filament yarn 
products headquartered at 111 West 40th Street, New York, New 
York 10018. We very strongly support the enactment of a three-
year suspension of the duties on certain viscose rayon yarn, 
also known as ``rayon filament yarn,'' as embodied in H.R. 
1742. If, in the judgment of the Committee on Ways and Means, a 
full suspension of the duties is not feasible, ICF would 
support, as an alternative, enactment of the following three 
bills as incremental steps toward the ultimate suspension of 
these tariffs: H.R. 1888, H.R. 1954, and H.R. 2148.
    With the exception of a very small and specialized category 
of yarn manufactured for ``carbonizing,'' rayon filament yarn 
is no longer manufactured in the United States. As set forth 
below, ICF endorses an exception to the proposed duty 
suspension for carbonizable yarn.

                              The Product

    Rayon filament yarn is used by the apparel, home 
furnishings and automotive industries for both textile and 
industrial purposes.
    Rayon filament yarn is a synthetic fiber extruded by what 
is known as the viscose process in which cellulose is liquefied 
via dilution in a caustic alkali solution, heated with carbon 
disulfide and then forced through tiny spinneret holes into a 
bath where it coagulates to form extremely fine jetsnt yarn. 
The product has a wide variety of end uses ranging from 
delicate, silk-like fabrics made for apparel out of fine denier 
textile yarn; to lining, velvet and other more durable textile 
fabrics for apparel; to embroidery, monogramming and other 
decorative stitching threads; to drapery, upholstery and other 
fabrics for home furnishings; to industrial strength hose for 
cars and trucks made of heavy denier yarn.

                        The Proposed Legislation

    ICF wishes to express its deep gratitude to those Members 
of the House who have expressed a keen interest in seeking a 
constructive solution to the problems posed by the existing 
general duty on rayon filament yarn, and who have responded to 
the concerns shared by the apparel, home furnishings and 
automotive industries by introducing or cosponsoring the 
legislation described below. ICF appreciates the leadership and 
continuing support of these Members and the hard work of their 
respective staffs.
    H.R. 1742, introduced on May 22, 1997 by Representative 
Steven Rothman (D-NJ), applies to three categories of rayon 
filament yarn for textile end uses as described in subheadings 
5403.31.00 and 5403.32.00 of The Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(``HTS'') and two categories of rayon filament yarn for 
industrial end uses as described in subheading 5403.10.30 of 
the HTS. Representative Rothman's bill would suspend the duty 
for all three subheadings for three years, until December 31, 
2000. More specifically, the categories of yarn that would be 
affected are as follows:
     HTS #5403.10.30 (Industrial Yarn): High tenacity 
yarn of viscose rayon: single yarn monofilament; multifilament, 
untwisted or with twist of less than 5 turns per meter 
(#5403.10.30.20) multifilament, with twist of 5 turns or more 
per meter (#5403.10.30.40)
    The general duty rate applicable to these yarns is ten 
percent. The current duty rate for imports from Mexico is six 
percent. Imports from Canada and Israel are exempt from duty.
     HTS #5403.31.00 (Textile Yarn): Other yarn; 
single: of viscose rayon, untwisted or with a twist not 
exceeding 120 turns per meter monofilament; multifilament, 
untwisted or ss than 5 turns per meter (#5403.31.00.20) 
multifilament, with twist of 5 turns or more per meter 
(#5403.31.00.40)
    The general duty rate applicable to these yarns is ten 
percent. The current duty rate for imports from Mexico is six 
percent. The duty rate for imports from Canada is one percent. 
Imports from Israel are exempt from duty.
     HTS #5403.32.00 (Textile Yarn): Other yarn, 
single: of viscose rayon, with a twist exceeding 120 turns per 
meter
    The general duty rate applicable to this yarn category is 
ten percent. The current duty rate for imports from Mexico is 
six percent. The duty rate for imports from Canada is one 
percent. Imports from Israel are exempt from duty.
    ICF wholeheartedly supports H.R. 1742 and urges the House 
Ways and Means Committee to approve the bill. Since there is no 
longer any domestic producer of the rayon filament yarn 
products for which tariff suspension is being sought, there is 
no longer any economic justification for the duties. In 
addition, duty suspension will create very real benefits to 
U.S. industry. In the alternative, ICF would support enactment 
of H.R. 1888, H.R. 1954 and H.R. 2148 as incremental steps 
toward the ultimate suspension of these tariffs.
    H.R. 1888, introduced on June 12, 1997 by Representative 
Peter King (R-NY), would suspend the duty for three years, 
through December 31, 2000, for the category of textile yarn 
described at HTS #5403.32.00 (see above).
    H.R. 1954, introduced on June 18, 1997 by Representative 
William L. Jenkins (R-TN), would suspend the duty for two 
years, through December 31, 1999, for industrial yarn as 
described at HTS# 5403.10.30 (see above).
    H.R. 2148, introduced on July 10, 1997 by Representatives 
Floyd Spence (R-SC) and Norman Sisisky (D-VA), would reduce the 
existing general duty from ten percent to 7.5 percent for one 
year, until December 31, 1998, on the category of textile yarn 
described at HTS# 5403.31.00 (see above).on also includes an 
exception from the duty reduction for rayon filament yarn that 
is manufactured for the purpose of carbonizing.

                 Absence of General Domestic Production

    According to data compiled by the Textile Organon, a 
respected industry publication, 658 million pounds of rayon 
filament yarn were produced in the United States during the 
year 1953. Thereafter, a combination of environmental and 
economic constraints forced producers in this country to reduce 
capacity or to shut down altogether. By 1965 U.S. production 
had been reduced to 434 million pounds. By 1975 U.S. production 
had dropped to 65 million pounds. By 1984, production in the 
United States was down to 41 million pounds.
    By the late 1980's there was only one remaining producer of 
rayon filament yarn in the United States. This company was the 
North American Rayon Corporation (``North American'') of 
Elizabethton, Tennessee. In 1996 North American sold only 9.5 
million pounds of rayon filament yarn and was being crushed by 
the massive financial burden of attempted compliance with the 
stringent federal and state environmental regulations 
applicable to the environmentally ``dirty'' rayon filament yarn 
extrusion process. In late 1996, North American decided to 
follow the lead of all other U.S. producers and ceased the 
greater part of its rayon filament yarn manufacturing 
activities.
    North American's termination of all but its carbonizable 
rayon filament yarn production means that there is no longer 
any producer in the United States of the type of rayon filament 
yarn distributed by ICF to the textile trade, nor of the 
industrial yarn used by the automotive industry. Further, the 
high costs which would be associated with the construction in 
the United States of a new rayon filament yarn manufacturing 
facility that could meet this country's stringent environmental 
standards, coupled with the historically low margins resulting 
from intense inter-fiber competition, assure that domestic 
users of rayon filament yarn will not be able to obtain these 
yarns from U.S. producers during coming years.

                Exception Proposed for Carbonizable Yarn

    North American Rayon Corporation's successor company, North 
American Corporation, now produces only a small category of 
rayon filament yarn that is manufactured for a specialized 
process known as carbonizing. ICF endorses an exception to the 
proposed duty reduction that would allow any imported 
carbonizable yarn to remain subject to the existing ten percent 
duty. As stated above, this exception is included in H.R. 2148. 
With respect to H.R. 1742 or any other bill which includes a 
suspension or reduction of the tariff for products that fall 
within HTS #5403.31.00, we recommend that the Committee include 
the following specific exception: ``except for medium tenacity 
rayon filament yarn (2.8 to 4.1 grams per denier) manufactured 
solely for the purpose of carbonizing.''

                The U.S. Market for Rayon Filament Yarn

    U.S. consumption of rayon filament yarn for textile and 
industrial end uses during the year 1995 amounted to 
approximately 29,380,000 pounds. North American supplied 
approximately 12,900,000 of these pounds, representing 
approximately 44% of combined U.S. demand. In dollars, North 
American's sales accounted for approximately $40 million, or 44 
percent, of the combined $91.5 million 1995 United States 
market. U.S. consumption of rayon filament yarn for textile and 
industrial end uses during the year 1996 amounted to 
approximately 22,500,000 pounds. North American supplied 
approximately 9,500,000 of these pounds, representing 
approximately 42 percent of combined U.S. demand. In dollars, 
North American's sales accounted for approximately $32 million, 
or 44.5 percent, of the combined $72 million 1996 United States 
market.

                             The Consumers

    The consumers of rayon filament yarn for textile end uses 
fall into three general categories: weavers, knitters and 
processors. ICF customers who consume textile rayon filament 
yarn include the following companies:

Weavers:

    Bally Ribbon Mills, Inc., Bloomsburg Mills, Inc., Carthage 
Fabrics Corp., CMI Industries Inc., Doran Textiles, Inc., 
Fabric Resources Ltd., Hoffman Mills Inc., Frank Ix & Sons, 
Inc., JPS Converter & Industrial Corp., Keystone Weaving Mills, 
Inc., J.B. Martin Company, Inc., McGinley Mills, Inc., Meder 
Textile Company, Inc., C.M. Offray & Sons, Inc., Lawrence 
Schiff Silk Mills, Schneider Mills, Inc., Stonecutter Mills 
Corporation, Trimtex Company Inc., Wear Best Sil-Tex Mills, A. 
Wimpfheimer & Brothers, Inc.

Knitters:

    Allied Fabrics Inc., Andrex Industries, H.H. Fessler 
Knitting co., Inc., Hope Industries, Ge-Ray Fabrics, Guilford 
Mills, I.G. Textile Mills Inc., Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Co. 
Inc. Division), Jomac Inc., Kentex Industries Inc., Kronfli 
Spundale Mills Inc., Liberty Fabrics, Lida Stretch Fabrics, 
Inc., Metritek Corporation , Mohawk Fabric Co., Inc., Native 
Textiles, Richland Mills, Shara-Tex Inc., Universal Connection 
Corp.

Processors:

    Barbour Threads, Clifton Yarn Mills, Danville Chenille Co., 
Inc., Decorative Aides Inc., Excel Elastic Corp., Huntingdon 
Yarn Mills, Ideal Braid Corporation, Kent Manufacturing Co., 
Lending Textile Co., Inc., London Yarn Co., Moki Yarns, Div. of 
Lacy Lace Co., Novita Yarns (Division of St. John Knits), 
Robison-Anton Textile Co., Twistex Yarns Inc., William Wright 
Co.
    The consumers of high tenacity, industrial strength rayon 
filament yarn are engaged principally in the manufacture of 
radiator hoses, hydraulic hoses, chemical transfer hoses and 
other durable hose products for the automotive industry. 
Significant users of industrial rayon filament yarn in the 
manufacture of automotive hoses include the following 
companies:
    Aeroquip Corporation, Beaver Manufacturing Co., The Bibb 
Company, Boston Industrial Products, Cooper Tire & Rubber 
Company, Dayco Products, Inc, Dunlop Tire Corporation, The 
Gates Rubber Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Michelin 
Tire Corporation, Nephi Rubber Products Corp.

                       The State of the Industry

    The U.S. weaving, knitting and yarn processing industries 
have been hit hard by intense competition from overseas 
suppliers of fabrics and stitching threads containing rayon 
filament yarn, and by the importation of low priced apparel and 
home furnishings. Selling prices are down. Employment is down. 
And looms, knitting machines and twisting and other processing 
machines are standing idle.
    For instance, according to industry sources, domestic 
weavers once controlled approximately 95 percent of the U.S. 
market for woven goods containing filament rayon. Today, 
domestic weavers control only approximately 25-30 percent of 
this domestic market, and they do so only by selling at very 
low prices. Industry sources also indicate that the converters 
who arrange for the dying and finishing of textile greige goods 
are now prone to look to U.S. weavers only for initial orders 
requiring innovation or for quick response, and that volume 
business is being given to overseas suppliers in China, Korea, 
India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey whose quality generally 
does not match that of the U.S. weavers but whose manufacturing 
costs and prices are considerably lower. This has reduced U.S. 
employment at some weavers.
    Similarly, the recent influx of low priced velvet fabrics 
from Korea and elsewhere has cic weavers' share of the market 
for rayon velvet fabrics to decline over the last few years 
from approximately 70 percent of the market to less than 50 
percent. Employment has declined and this decline has been 
attributable in large part to the high price of rayon filament 
yarn.
    Similarly, U.S. manufacturers of embroidery and other 
decorative yarns and threads have maintained market share in 
the face of intense Korean and other foreign competition only 
by slashing prices. Despite dramatic investment in new 
equipment to ensure that quality and productivity remain at the 
highest levels, average selling prices per unit today are 
significantly lower than they were some ten years ago.

             Industry Supports the Proposed Duty Suspension

    There is considerable support for the proposed duty 
suspension among the users of textile and industrial rayon 
yarn, as evidenced by the public comment received by the House 
Ways and Means Committee since the issuance of Advisory No. TR-
10 of June 30, 1997. Industry associations as well as 
individual companies have advised the Committee of their 
support for H.R. 1742, H.R. 1888, H.R. 1954 and H.R. 2148. 
Attached as Table I is a list of supporters of the proposed 
duty suspensions for rayon filament yarn based on letters sent 
to the Committee as of this date.

               There Is No Opposition to the Legislation

    Public comment addressed to the Committee as of this date 
which we have reviewed shows no opposition to the proposed duty 
suspension. Given that there is no longer any domestic producer 
of rayon filament yarn (other than carbonizable yarn as 
described above), this is not an unexpected development. 
Indeed, earlier this year the Commerce Department completed a 
changed circumstances antidumping duty administrative review 
and subsequently revoked the antidumping order on high-tenacity 
rayon filament yarn from Germany. According to the Federal 
Register notice dated May 30, 1997 (55 F.R. 29329), the 
Commerce Department's determination was based on the fact that 
North American, which had been the petitioner in the original 
underlying investigation, ``states that it has no further 
interest in the order.'' The Commerce Department finding 
further stated: ``We are now revoking the order based on the 
fact that the order is no longer of interest to domestic 
interested parties.''
    There were no submissions to the Commerce Department, and 
thus no opposition from the public, in response to the notice 
of preliminary determination to revoke the antidumping order, 
which had included an opportunity for public comment. We 
believe that the absence of any opposition to the revocation of 
the antidumping order and the absence of any public comment to 
this Committee in opposition to the proposed duty suspension 
provide a clear indication that continuation of the existing 
duty serves no useful commercial or public policy purpose.

                               Conclusion

    While not a complete panacea, the suspension of the ten 
percent duty on rayon filament yarns would lower the cost of 
these yarns to domestic producers no longer able to buy a U.S.-
made, duty-free rayon filament yarn product. Such a duty 
suspension would thus go a long way toward enhancing the 
ability of U.S. companies manufacturing fabrics for apparel and 
home furnishings and embroidery and similar decorative yarns--
and of their customers in the apparel and home furies--to 
compete more effectively in their U.S. home market against 
imported products and in the world market generally.
    Although the U.S. automotive industry is not adversely 
affected by foreign competition to the same extent as the 
textile and home furnishings industries, the U.S. producers of 
industrial strength hose for cars and trucks tend to be large 
companies with large work forces and multiple locations. These 
companies are likewise no longer able to buy U.S. made, duty 
free rayon filament yarn and thus also favor duty suspension 
now that the last remaining U.S. manufacturer of rayon filament 
yarn has ceased production of all but its carbonizable rayon 
filament yarn products.
    ICF urges the Committee to approve the proposed duty 
suspension for rayon filament yarn and to bring the matter to a 
vote in the full House of Representatives as soon as possible.

                                 Table 1                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               DATE OF  
             SUPPORTER                     LOCATION(S)          LETTER  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akzo Nobel Industrial Fibers, Inc..  Scottsboro, AL              8/14/97
Allied Fabrics, Inc................  Belmont, NC                 7/30/97
Bally Ribbon Mills.................  Bally, PA                   7/31/97
Beaver Manufacturing...............  Mansfield, GA                8/4/97
The Bibb Company...................  Atlanta, GA                  8/4/97
                                     Porterdale, GA                     
 Bloomsburg Mills, Inc.............  New York, NY                7/24/97
                                     Bloomsburg, PA                     
                                     Monroe, NC                         
 Carthage Fabrics Corp.............  Carthage, NC                 8/1/97
                                     New York, NY                       
 Clifton Yarn Mills................  Clifton Heights, PA         7/24/97
 CMI Industries Inc................  Greensboro, NC               8/5/97
                                     Clarkesville, GA                   
                                     New York, NY                       
                                     Columbia, SC                       
                                     Clinton, SC                        
                                     Elkin, NC                          
                                     Geneva, AL                         
                                     Stuart, VA                         
Danville Chenille Co., Inc.........  So. Danville, NH             8/8/97
 Ethicon (Div. of Johnson &          Somerville, NJ               8/4/97
 Johnson).                           Curooo, PR                         
                                     Cagous, PR                         
 Excel Elastic Corporation.........  Northvale, NJ                8/5/97
                                     Pawtucket, RI                      
 Fabric Resources Ltd..............  Great Neck, NY              7/31/97
                                     Rock Hill, SC                      
                                     Mullins, SC                        
 Frank Ix & Sons, Inc..............  New York, NY                7/30/97
                                     Lexington, NC                      
                                     Charlottesville, VA                
 Ge-Ray Fabrics....................  Morganville, NJ              8/6/97
                                     Asheville, NC                      
                                     Augusta, GA                        
                                     New York, NY                       
 Hoffman Mills Inc.................  New York, NY                7/25/97
                                     Shippensburg, PA                   
Hope Industries....................  Nashua, NH                   8/6/97
 Huntingdon Yarn Mills, Inc........  Philadelphia, PA            7/30/97
 I.G.Textile Mills, Inc............  New York, NY                 8/1/97
 Jomac Inc.........................  Warrington, PA               8/8/97
JPS Converter & Industrial Corp....  New York, NY                 8/5/97
                                     Greenville, SC                     
                                     South Boston, VA                   
                                     Rocky Mount, VA                    
                                     Lincolnton, NC                     
                                     Kingsport, TN                      
                                     Slater, SC                         
                                     Stanley, NC                        
                                     Laurens, SC                        
Kent Manufacturing Co..............  Pickens, SC                  8/6/97
Kentex Industries, Inc.............  Hudson, NH                  7/31/97
Keystone Weaving Mills, Inc........  Lebanon, PA                  8/5/97
                                     York, PA                           
Lawrence Schiff Silk Mills, Inc....  Quakertown, PA              7/24/97
                                     Bethlehem, PA                      
                                     Allentown, PA                      
                                     Carlisle, PA                       
                                     Newville, PA                       
Lending Textile Co., Inc...........  New York, NY                7/29/97
                                     Montgomery, PA                     
Lida Stretch Fabrics, Inc..........  New York, NY                8/14/97
                                     Charlotte, NC                      
J.B. Martin Company, Inc...........  New York, NY                7/29/97
                                     Leesville, SC                      
McGinley Mills, Inc................  Easton, PA                  7/23/97
                                     Phillipsburg, NJ                   
Meder Textile Co., Inc.............  Port Washington, NY         7/17/97
                                     Kings Mountain, NC                 
 Metritek Corp.....................  Boca Raton, FL               8/6/97
 Mohawk Fabric Co., Inc............  Amsterdam, NY               7/17/97
 Native Textiles...................  New York, NY                7/28/97
                                     Glens Falls, NY                    
 North American Corporation........  Elizabethton, TN            8/12/97
 C.M. Offray & Son, Inc............  Chester, NJ                 7/24/97
                                     Hagerstown, MD                     
                                     Anniston, AL                       
                                     Leesville, SC                      
                                     Watsontown, PA                     
                                     Danville, VA                       
 Richland Mills....................  Hialeah, FL                 7/31/97
 Robison-Anton Textile Company.....  Fairview, NJ                7/23/97
                                     Clark Summit, PA                   
 Schneider Mills, Inc..............  New York, NY                7/17/97
                                     Taylorsville, NC                   
                                     Forest City, NC                    
 Shara-Tex Inc.....................  Vernon, CA                  7/30/97
 St. John Knits....................  Irvine, CA                   8/6/97
 Stonecutter Mills Corporation.....  Spindale, NC                 8/4/97
                                     New York, NY                       
 Trimtex Company, Inc..............  Williamsport, PA            8/12/97
 Twistex Yarns.....................  Oceanside, CA               7/22/97
 Universal Connection..............  Los Angeles, CA             7/31/97
 Wearbest Sil-Tex Mills Ltd........  Garfield, NJ                 8/7/97
A. Wimpfheimer & Bro., Inc.........  New York, NY                7/11/97
                                     Stonington, CT                     
                                     Orange, VA                         
                                     Blackstone, VA                     
 Wm. E. Wright L.P.................  West Warren, MA             8/11/97
ASSOCIATIONS:                                                           
                                                                        
 American Textile Mfgrs. Institute.  Washington, D.C.            8/13/97
 Nat'l Knitwear & Sportwear Ass'n..  New York, NY                8/12/97
 Textile Distributors Association..  New York, NY                7/23/97
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                

             National Knitwear & Sportswear Association    
                                    New York City, NY 10016
                                                    August 12, 1997
Mr. Phil Crane, Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
Room 1150 Longworth Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On June 30, 1997 the Committee invited comment on various 
miscellaneous tariff bills including several to suspend the duty on 
artificial filament yarn of viscose rayon (H.R. 1742) and similar 
legislation. (HR 1954, H.R. 1888 and, on a more extensive bill, H.R. 
2148 which would reduce the duty for one year on a broader variety of 
viscose yarns.)
    The National Knitwear & Sportswear Association represents a variety 
of garment manufacturing companies generally specializing in the 
production of knitted garments, including sweaters. Our members are 
located in many states, including New York, New Jersey, California, 
Minnesota, Ohio, the Carolinas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania. We also 
count among our members a number of fabric knitting companies 
manufacturing circular knit fabrics principally for apparel end uses.
    While the yarns covered under the subject bills are a relatively 
minor element in the apparel scene, and many are for industrial uses 
unrelated to apparel and therefore outside of our areas of interest 
and/or expertise, viscose is a fashion element in many garments and is 
therefore of interest to a number of our members. Apparel containing 
these yarns is imported into the United States in competition with our 
members, and they need to be able to obtain these materials at a 
competitive price for use in the manufacture of garments in the United 
States. Additionally, we believe that recent action by the Committee 
involving yarns of all fibers warrants a more complete consideration of 
the existing yarn tariff and quota situation, and that this 
reexamination should apply to all yarns rather than solely those 
referred to in the bills noted above.
    During the current session, the Committee approved legislation 
granting what was referred to as ``parity'' to the Caribbean basin 
countries (Sec. 981 of the Tax bill). That legislation granted duty and 
quota free status to a variety of Caribbean made apparel products, 
provided only that they were made of United States origin yarn (Sec. 
984). (NKSA opposed that legislation for a variety of reasons not 
recounted again here.) We understand that legislation along those lines 
will be proposed again shortly, perhaps in conjunction with, or as part 
of, the Fast Track legislation.
    In light of the Committee's previous endorsement of CBI ``parity'' 
legislation, we urge that any new legislation along those lines include 
the elimination of duties and quotas on yarns, regardless of origin, 
for use in the manufacture of apparel in the United States. If the 
Committee continues to believe that providing immediate and special 
tariff and quota benefits for the Caribbean industry is good policy, 
hopefully it will be interested in contributing a small offset to that 
policy so that domestic garment manufacturers and fabric manufacturers, 
with employees far outnumbering those in the apparel-yarn industry, 
might be better able to cope with the garment import flow that a CBI 
bill would generate.
    For the domestic knitted garment manufacturing industry to have a 
reasonable chance for survival in the face of a totally open apparel 
door from the Caribbean, duty and quota free access to yarns from world 
markets will be essential. The American industry cannot accept a 
circumstance in which the most import sensitive apparel is permitted 
what amounts to a seven year advance on the scheduled elimination of 
the international quota system, while yarn essential to the 
manufacturing process remains subject to duties and quotas. This 
creates the classic tariff anomaly in which the raw materials are taxed 
and subject to quotas, thereby burdening domestic producers, while the 
higher value added products they make are encouraged to be imported. A 
reverse situation should apply.
    We recognize that the elimination of yarn duties would add to the 
revenue cost of the pending legislation, but believe that the benefits 
to domestic manufacturers would enable some to survive who might not 
otherwise, thereby saving on unemployment insurance and welfare claims. 
The Committee should examine these issues fully.
    For these reasons we support the instant legislation calling for 
elimination or suspension of duties on viscose yarns, while urging the 
Committee to consider the entire yarn import situation more fully at 
its earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for including this comment in the record of the 
Committee.
            Sincerely yours,
                                             Seth M. Bodner
                                                 Executive Director

                                

                             North American Corporation    
                              Elizabethton, Tennessee 37643
                                                    August 12, 1997
Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-6348

ATTENTION: A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

RE: H.R. 1742, H.R. 1888, H.R. 1954 and H.R. 2148

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of North American Fibers (successor to North American 
Rayon Corporation) (``North American'') and its employees, I want to 
express strong support for the above legislation to suspend or reduce 
the tariff on both industrial and textile rayon filament yarn. With 
respect to H.R. 1742 or any bill which includes a suspension or 
reduction of the tariff for products that fall within HTS #5403.31.00, 
I request that the Committee include the following exception: ``except 
for medium tenacity rayon filament yarn (2.8 to 4.1 grams per denier) 
manufactured solely for the purpose of carbonizing.''
    For many years until the end of 1996, North American was the sole 
U.S. manufacturer of rayon filament yarn. Because of the continuous 
increase in low cost imported fabrics and garments, North American 
ceased production in early 1997 of the rayon filament yarn cited in the 
above legislation, except for carbonizable yarn as described above. We 
believe it highly unlikely that any U.S. company would initiate a 
venture in the future for the general manufacture of rayon filament 
yarn because of the economic and environmental factors that limit its 
profitability.
    In addition to the manufacture of carbonizable yarn, North American 
continues to process imported high tenacity industrial yarn for 
customers who in turn manufacture radiator hoses, hydraulic hoses, 
chemical transfer hoses and other durable hose products.
    North American and our customers are under significant pressure 
from overseas competitors that can obtain this yarn at much lower 
duties, are not as carefully regulated with respect to labor and 
environmental conditions and generally have lower production costs. 
These foreign manufacturers can then export products made from such 
yarn to the United States at prices that create an unfair advantage for 
imports. Suspending or reducing the duty on both industrial and textile 
rayon filament yarn will not fully resolve this problem, but it will 
help significantly in keeping U.S. products competitive with imports, 
thereby preserving U.S. jobs and industrial capacity.
    North American believes that the public record of comment on this 
legislation will demonstrate that there is no opposition to its 
enactment. For instance, in response to our request in another matter 
involving high tenacity rayon filament yarn, the Commerce Department 
recently completed a changed circumstances antidumping duty 
administrative review and revoked the antidumping order on high-
tenacity rayon filament yarn from Germany in a Federal Register notice 
dated May 30, 1997. The Commerce Department's determination was based 
on the fact that North American, which had been the petitioner in the 
original underlying investigation, ``has expressed no interest in the 
continuation of the antidumping duty order.'' In addition, there were 
no submissions to the Commerce Department, and thus no opposition from 
the public, in response tpreliminary determination to revoke the 
antidumping order.
    We at North American hope the Committee will approve H.R. 1742. 
While this bill involves relatively substantial revenue losses for a 
tariff suspension, there is no longer any economic justification for 
the tariff, and its suspension will create very real benefits to U.S. 
industry. In the alternative, we support H.R. 1888, H.R. 1954 and H.R. 
2148 as incremental steps toward ultimate suspension of these tariffs.
            Sincerely,
                                           Charles K. Green
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                

H.R. 1793

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrithiobac Sodium.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1852

    To reduce the duty on a polymer of alkanediols, monocyclic 
dicarboxylic acid dimethyl ester, monocyclic monosulfonated 
dicarboxylic acid dimethyl ester monosodium salt and hydroxy 
alkoxyalkanesulfonic acid sodium salt.

                                

                                    Hoechst Corporation    
                                       Washington, DC 20005
                                                    August 15, 1997
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

SUBJECT: Support of H.R. 1852

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of Hoechst Corporation, I am pleased to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee on Trade's Advisory TR-10, 
dated June 30, 1997. The Hoechst Corporation supports H.R. 1852, 
legislation introduced by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), which would reduce to 
3.5 percent ad valorem the tariff on a polymer of alkanediols, 
monocyclic dicarboxylic acid dimethyl ester, monocyclic monosulfonated 
dicarboxylic acid dimethyl ester monosodium salt and hydroxy 
alkoxyalkanesulfonic.
    The product is imported from Germany and is used in a variety of 
home care products to improve their effectiveness. Its enactment would 
enhance the competitiveness of the Hoechst Corporation in the US., as 
well as benefit the ultimate consumers by the production of a more cost 
effective product. There are no manufacturers of this product in the 
United States or other countries, and as a result no U.S. manufacturers 
or workers would be negatively impacted by its enactment.
    This product is currently imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the U.S. subheading 3907.90.50 at a specific duty rate of 2.2 cents 
per kilogram plus 8.2 percent ad valorem. The estimated adjusted loss 
of revenue from enactment of this bill would be approximately $440,000 
per year, based on import figures for 1996.
    We are currently working with the International Trade Commission 
and the U.S. Customs Service to refine the chemical name description 
for the product and will work with the Trade Subcommittee in any 
subsequent markup to ensure that this legislation can be effectively 
administered by the Customs Service.
    We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to ensure enactment 
of this legislation and appreciate this opportunity to comment and the 
Subcommittee's continued commitment to miscellaneous tariff 
legislation.
            Best Regards,
                                            W. Anthony Shaw
                                               Government Relations

                                

      

H.R. 1875

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to allow entry of peanut butter and paste manufactured 
from Mexican peanuts in foreign trade zones, without being 
subject to a tariff-rate quota.

                                

                Chocolate Manufacturers Association        
                     National Confectioners Association    
                                McLean, Virginia 22102-4203
                                                     August 8, 1997
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    The National Confectioners Association (NCA) and the Chocolate 
Manufacturers Association (CMA) would like to submit these comments 
regarding H.R. 1875 for your committee record.
    Together our associations represent 175 companies that manufacture 
the vast majority of chocolate and non-chocolate products in the United 
States and another 250 companies that supply those manufacturers. At 
times the confectionery industry is the second largest user of peanuts 
in the United States, so we are very interested in issues that affect 
this valuable commodity.
    While the passage of H.R. 1875 would not have a major impact on the 
trade activity of peanuts between Mexico and the United States, we do 
support approval of the measure.
    As you know, our federal government restricts the supply of peanuts 
in this country to guarantee an artificially high price for those who 
grow the commodity. These steps taken by our own government have not 
really served to help our domestic peanut growers, but instead have 
caused the demand for this important product to decline.
    In addition, the members of our associations are forced to compete 
with confectionery products from abroad whose manufacturers are able to 
purchase peanuts at the much less expensive world market price. Such 
economic trends force our members to consider locating jobs outside the 
U.S.
    Until more significant steps are taken to change these restrictive 
trade policies of the American government and to bring about a more 
market oriented system of selling peanuts in the United States, the 
peanut industry will continue to decline. But in the meantime, the 
measures called for in H.R. 1875 are positive steps that would bring 
about increased use of peanuts and could save American jobs by allowing 
the processing of some Mexican peanuts in our country.
    Please let us know if we can provide your committee with any 
further information on this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                         Lawrence T. Graham
                                                          President

LTG/sgl

                                

      

Comments of James W. Dorsett, President, Golden Peanut Company, 
Alpharetta, Georgia

    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit to the Subcommittee on 
Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, this statement in support 
of H.R. 1875, which would amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States to allow the manufacturing of peanut 
butter and paste in U.S. foreign-trade zones, subject to 
certain conditions. Golden Peanut Company commends Chairman 
Crane for introducing this important legislation and 
appreciates the opportunity to provide its views.
    Golden Peanut Company is the largest sheller of peanuts in 
the United States,U.S. operating shelling plants in all three 
of the major U.S. peanut producing areas of the U.S., i.e., the 
Southwest, Southeast, and the Virginia-Carolina areas. We also 
operate further processing plants manufacturing further 
processed products, including peanut butter, which includes the 
manufacturing of peanut butter in Georgia and Texas. Because 
Since all of our physical assets are in the United States, U.S. 
we are very concerned about the non-competitive position in 
which certain provisions of that the North American Free Trade 
Agreement placeplaces on U.S. peanut shellers and growers.
    Golden Peanut Company strongly supports H.R. 1875 as a 
measure urgently needed to address a defect in current tariff 
law that places U.S. producers of peanut butter and paste, such 
as Golden Peanut Company, at a competitive disadvantage 
relative to competitors in Mexico. Current law grants quota-
free tariff access to the U.S. market to Mexican producers of 
NAFTA-qualifying peanut butter and paste but restricts, under a 
tariff-rate quota, the U.S. industry's access to Mexican-grown 
peanuts that would be used to manufacture peanut butter and 
paste in the United States. If not corrected, this 
disadvantageous tariff relationship will result in competitive 
harm to U.S. peanut butter and paste producers. It also will 
encourage the discontinuation of U.S. peanut butter and paste 
production in favor of new production facilities in Mexico.
    H.R. 1875 would allow U.S. peanut butter and paste plants 
to use foreign-trade zone procedures for the limited purpose of 
processing Mexican-origin peanuts into peanut butter and paste. 
Because the finished product would be made with U.S. labor, the 
change in tariff law made by the bill would preserve economic 
activity and jobs in the United States. Because imports under 
the new provision could not be withdrawn from foreign-trade 
zones to enter the U.S. market in the form of peanuts (or in 
any form other than as peanut butter or paste), the bill would 
have no adverse effect on the peanut program administered by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    Because Mexico is the only country in the world that has 
quota-free access to the U.S. peanut butter and paste market, 
current U.S. tariff treatment of peanut butter and paste 
products will encourage the growth of an export-oriented peanut 
butter and paste industry in Mexico. Given U.S. international 
trade commitments, we must expect this result whether or not 
H.R. 1875 is enacted. However, H.R. 1875, which is fully 
consistent with our country's international trade obligations, 
will prevent unnecessary economic harm to the U.S. peanut 
butter and paste industry. Absent the remedy to be effected by 
the bill, U.S. tariff law will continue to treat Mexican peanut 
butter and paste producers more favorably than it treats Golden 
Peanut and the other peanut butter and paste producers in the 
United States.
    For all these reasons, Golden Peanut Company urges the 
enactment of H.R. 1875 as soon as possible.

                                

H.R. 1876

    To clarify that certain large components of certain 
scientific instruments and apparatus shall be provided the same 
tariff treatment as those scientific instruments and apparatus.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1879

    To suspend temporarily the duty of Triflusulfuron Methyl.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1882

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain parts for in-
line skates.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1886

    To suspend the duties on Pantera.

                                

                        Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc.    
                                             Middlebury, CT
                                                    August 15, 1997
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on Pantera Technical (+/
        -tetrahydro-furfuryl-2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxaline-2-
        yloxy) phenoxyl propanoate)--H.R. 1886

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., we are writing to 
submit comments regarding H.R. 1886, a bill to temporarily suspend the 
duty on Pantera Technical (+/-tetrahydro-furfuryl-2-[4-(6-
chloroquinoxaline-2-yloxy) phenoxyl propanoate). Uniroyal strongly 
endorses this House Bill as a means to provide to the US agriculture 
industry at more competitive prices a highly effective graminicide for 
the control of many annual and perennial grass weeds.
    There are substantial economic benefits to farmers and growers 
producing a wide range of important food and ornamental crops in the US 
from the use of Pantera Technical. This product is used to control 
weeds in growing cotton, dry bean, flax, forests, tree nurseries, fruit 
trees, grapevine, lentils, lupins, melons, mustard, onion, oilseed 
rape, peas, peanuts, potatoes, red beets, soybeans, sugar beets and 
sunflowers.
    Pantera Technical is a post emergence graminicide, which eliminates 
pests in a wide range of annual and perennial grass weeds, as well as 
in many broad leafed crops. It does not require oil based adjuvant to 
be effective and is more environmentally friendly than other 
graminicides and herbicides. Compared to other similar products, it is 
friendlier because it is effective in controlling regrowth of the 
weeds. As a result, the need for multiple applications during a growing 
season is significantly reduced.
    In conclusion, we support this legislation as beneficial to the 
agriculture community. There should be no opposition from US chemical 
manufacturers since this is a proprietary chemical not produced in the 
US. The savings from the elimination of the duty can be passed along, 
in whole or in part, to customers worldwide who purchase this product.
    We thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We are 
prepared to respond to any questions Committee members or staff may 
have about this product.
            Sincerely,
                                           James B. Clawson
                                                  JBC International

                                

H.R. 1887

    To suspend the duties on Triacetonamine.

                                

                        Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc.    
                                             Middlebury, CT
                                                    August 15, 1997
Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on triacetonamine (4-
        piperzone 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl)--H.R. 1887

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., we are writing to 
submit comments regarding H.R. 1887, a bill to temporarily suspend the 
duty on triacetonamine (4-piperzone 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl). Uniroyal 
strongly endorses this House Bill as a means to improve the competitive 
position of Uniroyal in the worldwide sales of its new proprietary 
product NAUGARD SFR.
    Triacetonamine is a proprietary nitroxyl free radical mixture with 
ethylbenzene. It is used as a raw material in the manufacture of 
Uniroyal Chemical Company's new line of NAUGARD SFR (stable free 
radical) polymerization inhibitor chemicals. These chemicals inhibit 
the development of polymers during the curing of rubbers and plastics. 
Uniroyal's NAUGUARD SFR product line is unique in that it is 
characterized by very low usage levels (approximately 20% as much as 
other inhibitor chemicals), does not require air injection, and has 
high storage stability. These products have low toxicity and 
environmental impact; they are available in solution form and have 
demonstrated an excellent cost/performance ratio.
    The use of triacetonamine in manufacturing the NAUGARD SFR 
polymerization inhibitors as recently has been tested with excellent 
and highly promising results. Uniroyal has already invested heavily to 
upgrade the capital production equipment in the US and will invest 
significant additional funds for processing improvements over the next 
three years should the cost of inputs such as triacetonamine be 
reduced.
    This new investment is creating new jobs with hopes of much further 
expansion over the next two to five years. Uniroyal is using three 
shifts five days a week now to produce NAUGARD SFR. Production can be 
expanded to four shifts seven days a week if NAUGARD SFR is as 
successful in its global sales as believed. Triacetonamine is the key 
to that success. It is not manufactured in the US since it is a 
proprietary product produced by Huls, Inc. in Germany.
    In conclusion, Uniroyal supports passage of this legislation, which 
will allow Uniroyal to reduce its cost of production of the new line of 
NAUGARD SFR chemicals. These savings can be passed along, in whole or 
in part, to rubber chemical manufacturers worldwide who purchase this 
product. There should be no opposition from US chemical manufacturers 
since this is a proprietary chemical not produced in the US.
    We thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We are 
prepared to respond to any questions Committee members or staff may 
have about this product.
            Sincerely,
                                           James B. Clawson
                                                  JBC International

On behalf of Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., we submit these comments 
regarding H.R. 1887, a bill to temporarily suspend the duty on 
triacetonamine (4-piperzone 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl). Uniroyal endorses 
this bill since it will promote worldwide sales of NAUGARD SFR, a 
chemical that inhibits the development of polymers during the curing of 
rubbers and plastic. This legislation will help Uniroyal reduce the 
cost of its production and thereby the cost to consumers.

                                

H.R. 1888

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain twisted yarn of 
viscose rayon.

                see Hoechst Corporation under H.R. 1742

                see ICF Industries, Inc. under H.R. 1742

     see National Knitwear & Sportswear Association under H.R. 1742

             see North American Corporation under H.R. 1742

                                

H.R. 1889

    To suspend temporarily the duty on spring steel.

                                

Comments of K2 Corporation

  H.R. 1889 and H.R. 1890: Duty Suspensions for Steel Edges and Base 
                               Materials

    K2 Corporation (``K2''), a U.S. manufacturer of skis and 
snowboards, supports legislation to suspend U.S. customs duty 
on imports of two key raw materials used in the production of 
its skis and snowboards: (1) steel edges and (2) polyethylene 
base materials. K2 believes the duty suspension legislation is 
necessary to maintain K2's competitiveness in the U.S. and 
global marketplace.

   I. Background: K2 Is the Principal Employer on Vashon Island and 
          Performs Significant Manufacturing Operations There.

    K2 manufactures skis and snowboards on Vashon Island, 
Washington. K2 employs over 700 people at its Vashon facility, 
which makes it the principal employer on the island. K2's 
employees perform all significant manufacturing processes 
required to produce its skis and snowboards. All K2 snowboards 
and virtually all K2 and Olin-brand skis sold throughout the 
world are individually crafted by skilled K2 technicians on 
Vashon Island.
    K2 sources most key components of its skis and snowboards 
from Seattle-area companies.
    With regard to the imported steel edges and base materials, 
K2 technicians perform the following operations in making the 
skis or snowboards. First, the steel edges are bent to the 
shape of one of the several K2 ski or snowboard designs. The 
steel edges are then attached to the other main components of 
the ski or snowboard. These components include: (1) the ski/
snowboard core, which consists of several thin pieces of wood 
glued together, (2) layers of fiberglass mixed with resins, (3) 
polyethylene base material and (4) the ski cap or snowboard top 
that encloses the core and fiberglass and binds together the 
base material and steel edges to form the ski/snowboard. The 
base material, ski caps and snowboard tops are made of 
polyethylene and contain graphics which are designed and 
applied by K2 technicians. Thereafter, the entire assembly is 
fitted into a press and heated to accelerate the curing 
process.

II. Reasons Why the Duty Suspensions for Steel Edges and Base Materials 
                   for Skis and Snowboards Are Needed

A. There Is Currently No Supplier of Steel Edges or Base 
Materials in the United States that Meets K2's Requirements.

    1. Steel Edges
    Until very recently, K2 has imported all of its 
requirements of steel edges for skis and snowboards from 
Europe.
    K2 has continually attempted to identify U.S. suppliers of 
steel edges; however, until recently, no suppliers in the 
United States could meet K2's requirements for this product.\1\ 
This lack of U.S. supply may be attributed to the fact that 
steel producers consider steel edges for skis and snowboards as 
specialty steel products. Except for a small ski manufacturer 
in Colorado known as Volant, K2 is the only U.S. manufacturer 
of skis. Because virtually all of the world's remaining ski 
manufacturing capacity is located in Europe, where 
manufacturers already have an established European source of 
supply of steel edges, U.S. steel producers have been unwilling 
to produce a specialty product in order to meet K2's relatively 
small requirement for steel edges at a reasonable price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ K2 is currently running extensive tests and production samples 
of steel edges produced by Bekaert Steel Company, a Belgian-owned steel 
company that has recently begun manufacturing in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Base Materials
    K2 currently imports all of its base material requirements 
for skis and snowboards. K2 imports two kinds of base 
materials: sintered and extruded. Sintered base material is 
more durable and has better gliding capability than extruded 
base material. It is generally used in skis. All of K2's skis 
and approximately 15% of its snowboards are made of sintered 
base material.
    At the present time, and to the best of our knowledge, 
there is no U.S. supplier of sintered ski base material, and 
there is only one supplier of sintered snowboard base material 
in the United States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ K2 has made repeated efforts to use domestically-sourced, 
sintered base material for snowboards. However, it has not been of the 
production quality necessary to meet K2's needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, K2 is not aware of any United States supplier of 
extruded base material. (Extruded base material is cheaper and 
easier to fabricate than sintered base materials, and is used 
mostly in low end products.) 85% of K2's snowboards are made of 
extruded base material.

B. The Duty Suspension Would Increase K2's Competitiveness in 
the U.S. and Foreign Markets.

    1. K2 Is a Major Exporter of U.S.-Made Skis and Snowboards.
    K2 is major exporter of U.S.-made skis and snowboards. It 
bears repeating that K2's exports of U.S. skis are the only 
major exports of U.S. skis. K2's U.S. ski exports compete with 
other foreign-made skis such as Rossignol, Elan, Salomon and 
Atomic. Moreover, K2 is one of the three principal exporters of 
U.S.-made snowboards. Thus, K2's U.S.-made ski and snowboard 
exports represent a substantial percentage of U.S.-made skis 
and snowboards.
    2. The Duty Suspension Would Increase K2's Competitiveness.
    K2 competes with several European manufacturers in the U.S. 
and throughout the world in a market that is characterized by 
significant over capacity. It is estimated that the world 
capacity for the manufacture of skis is 11 million pairs, 
whereas only 4.5 million pairs were sold worldwide in 1995. As 
a result, price competition is severe.\3\ Additionally, 
European governments are known to provide direct or indirect 
financial incentives to their ski manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ According to Ski Industries America (SIA), approximately 
850,000 pairs of skis and 450,000 snowboards were sold in the United 
States during the 1995-6 season. Approximately 650,000 pairs of skis 
and 300,000 snowboards were imported during the same period.
    During the 1995-6 season, the major importers of skis to the U.S. 
were Rossignol (160,000 pairs, France), Elan (120,000 pairs, Austria), 
Salomon (100,000 pairs, France) and Atomic (80,000 pairs, Austria).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast, K2 is required to pay significant amounts in 
U.S. customs duties on its importations of steel edges and base 
materials for products that it cannot source domestically.
    The fierce level of competition in the ski industry has 
left K2 as the last remaining major U.S. ski manufacturer and 
one of only three major U.S. snowboard manufacturers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. ski manufacturers that have gone out of business in the 
last 10 years due to increased competition in the industry include: 
Century--Tacoma, WA; Hexel--Carson City, NV; The Ski--Sun Valley, ID; 
Head--Boulder, CO; Hart--St. Paul, MN.

C. The Duty Suspension Would Secure Current Jobs and Encourage 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth at K2's Vashon Facility.

    The duty suspension would generate approximately $100,000 
to $200,000 dollars in duty savings annually. K2 would like to 
use the savings to secure current jobs at its Vashon facility 
and to continue to encourage development of innovative new 
products.

                  III. Conclusions and Recommendation

    In sum, K2 is currently unable to identify a United States 
supplier that would satisfy its requirements of base materials 
and only recently has a identified a U.S.-based manufacturer of 
steel edges willing to work with it to explore U.S. production 
possibilities to meet K2's needs. Consequently, K2 requests 
legislation to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the 
United States that would suspend duty on imported steel edges 
and base materials used in manufacture of skis and snowboards. 
Such duty suspensions, which will account for significant 
customs duty savings per year, are vital to K2's continued 
economic competitiveness in an already tight market. Moreover, 
these savings will contribute significantly to K2's future 
growth and expansion in Vashon.

                                

Comments of Robert L. Brock, Executive Vice President, Profiles, Inc., 
Ware, Massachusetts

    Premise for the elimination of this duty is that it does 
not protect any U.S. industry as there are no U.S. companies 
that produce this material.
    Profiles, Inc. has been in the past and continues today to 
be in the business of producing just such material. We 
presently are a supplier of this material to one of the major 
manufacturers of snowboards in this country. We have the 
capacity to produce higher volumes for other customers and are 
actively pursuing that possibility.
    When skis were more abundantly produced in this country, we 
were a major supplier. The majority of skis are now produced in 
Europe and until the advent of the snowboard industry, we were 
a small producer.
    We presently must compete with European suppliers of this 
material who not only have the advantage of producing large 
quantities of this product, but we understand may enjoy 
government subsidies. Price competition is very intense and 
with our relatively small volumes, we have to be extremely 
efficient to compete.
    We would urge careful consideration of this amendment with 
the understanding that there is an American manufacturer of 
this edge material who will be affected by your decisions.
    We appreciate the opportunity of commenting on this 
resolution.

Submitted on: 28 July 1997

                                

H.R. 1890

    To suspend temporarily the duty on polyethylene base 
materials.

                   see K2 Corporation under H.R. 1889

                                

H.R. 1893

    To suspend until January 1, 2000, the duty on 
Tetrafluoroethylene, Hexafluoropropylene, and Vinylidene 
fluoride.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1897

    To suspend temporarily the duty on KN001 (a hydrochloride).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1907

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to allow the duty-free entry of an additional quantity 
of green peanuts that are the product of Mexico.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1919

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1920

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1921

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1922

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1923

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1924

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1925

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1926

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1927

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1928

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1929

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1930

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1931

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1932

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1933

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1934

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1935

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1936

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 1937

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1938

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

                                

                   Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation    
                                  Tarrytown, New York 10591
                                                   August, 14, 1997
A.L. Singleton
Chief Of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 1938

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    This letter is submitted in response to the Committee's request for 
comments regarding proposed duty suspension bills. Ciba Specialty 
Chemicals requests that this letter serve as its objection to the 
passage into law of H.R. 1938.
    The subject bill seeks to temporarily suspend the duty on a product 
described as benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis [5-nitro- 
(CAS No. 128-42-7), currently classified in the tariff under subheading 
2904.90.35.00 (4,4'-Dinitrostilbene-2,2'-disulfonic acid). The product 
is also known as di-nitro stilbene (DNS).
    DNS is a direct intermediate in the production of certain stilbenic 
dyes and fluorescent whitening agents. Ciba is a U.S. manufacturer of 
these stilbenic dyes and fluorescent whitening agents (FWA). DNS is 
produced by Ciba as an intermediate in its manufacture of these 
products. In other certain instances we also sell DNS commercially.
    Duty elimination on DNS would allow ease of production of the 
finished goods, in the case of the stilbenic dyes; and, would allow 
extreme ease in production of DAS, which is the next intermediate in 
FWA manufacture. Ciba is the only U.S. manufacturer of the entire 
stilbene train consisting of DNS and DAS.
    The consequences of this action on Ciba would be great. The company 
has invested over 25 million dollars in our manufacturing facilities 
and processes for the production of DNS. Additionally, many employees 
are involved in the production of the DNS, and the resultant products 
we manufacture. This is a sizeable investment at risk. Ciba would face 
an extreme competitive disadvantage should imports of DNS enter duty 
free. Should it be necessary we would be willing to provide additional 
data relating to the impact of this proposed measure.
    Accordingly, we request that HR 1938 not be passed into law. Please 
feel free to contact me in connection with any questions or additional 
information you may need.
            Very truly yours,
                                          Michelle F. Forte
                                        International Trade Counsel

                                

H.R. 1940

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical P-
nitrobenzoic.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 1945

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing 
equipment.

                                

Comments of Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Findlay, Ohio

    Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (``Cooper'') submits these 
comments in opposition to that portion of the proposed duty 
suspension bill (H.R. 1945) which relate to equipment 
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') Numbers 
8420.10.90, 8420.91.90, 8420.99.90, 8462.31.00, 8463.30.00, 
8477.20.00, 8477.51.00, 8477.90.80, and 8465.91.00.
    Cooper operates ten manufacturing facilities in the United 
States with 9,066 employees on our payroll. We are a U.S. 
company with four tire manufacturing plants in the United 
States. Our automobile and truck tires and inner tubes comprise 
the largest portion of Cooper's business but we also 
manufacture vibration control products, hoses and hose 
assemblies and automotive sealing systems.
    We find no introductory statement of H.R. 1945, but in the 
companion bill introduced in the Senate, the proposed 
legislation has been represented as temporary duty suspension 
on certain equipment used to manufacture earthmoving tires. 
However, in reviewing the descriptions under the listed HTS 
numbers, it is clear the equipment is such as is used to 
manufacture any type of tires and other rubber products.
    In the past, Cooper has equipped its plants by building or 
importing equipment for manufacturing. Over a period of many 
years, we have paid the full duty on all imported equipment.
    It appears this bill will benefit only one manufacturer for 
a period of time needed to allow the manufacturer to bring into 
the U.S. equipment to meet future planned development and/or 
expansion. Cooper is opposed to the bill because it will place 
those companies who have paid the duty on past imported 
equipment at a competitive disadvantage. As you may know, the 
tire industry is extremely competitive and a mature industry. 
Legislation which will benefit one company and has no dollar 
limit on the value of equipment to be imported duty free is not 
fair.
    Finally, this legislation could amount to a significant 
loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Equipment of the type 
described is expensive and the duty is as high as 4.4%. Such a 
potential loss to the government should not be overlooked in 
evaluating the proposed bill.
    For all the above reasons, Cooper is opposed to H.R. 1945 
as written and asks that these comments be given serious 
consideration.

                                

Comments of Robert J. Schrecongost, Vice President Technical, Dunlop 
Tire Corporation, Buffalo, New York

    Dunlop Tire Corporation with Headquarters in Buffalo, New 
York manufactures original equipment and replacement tires for 
markets in the United States. Dunlop has two (2) tire 
manufacturing plants in the U.S., one in Alabama, the other in 
New York State. These plants employ 3197 individuals.
    Dunlop opposes the passage of H.R. 1945, because it would 
place us at a competitive disadvantage. In reviewing the tariff 
classifications that are specified in H.R. 1945, Dunlop 
technical staff have determined that the manufacturing 
equipment involved could be used for the manufacture of 
automobile, truck, and other tires. This equipment is also 
capable of producing a wide spectrum of tire components and 
other rubber products. This equipment is not unique to 
earthmover tires. Even if the equipment involved were used only 
for earthmover tires, it is still a segment of the larger 
industry in which Dunlop participates. A temporary suspension 
of tariffs as proposed would represent a disadvantage to Dunlop 
in this industry because tire manufacture would be accomplished 
with equipment that was duty free.
    If this temporary bill were passed it would be in effect 
for three years. There is no ceiling on the amount of machinery 
that can be imported during this period and the capability of 
the machinery covered includes products of our business, 
therefore, Dunlop would unfairly be placed at a significant 
financial disadvantage. Duty has always been paid by Dunlop on 
the machinery it imports.
    Passage of this bill would also cause a large tariff 
revenue loss potential to the U.S. Treasury.
    Dunlop is opposed to H.R. 1945 as it is currently written 
because it makes it possible to manufacture tires, earthmover 
and others, with equipment on which no duty is being paid. This 
bill is unfair to manufacturers like ourselves who have paid 
duty on imported tire manufacturing equipment.

                                

Comments of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio

    The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, headquartered in Akron, 
Ohio, is the last remaining U.S. tire company to manufacture 
for both the original equipment and replacement markets here in 
the United States. Goodyear has 34 tire and rubber products 
plants within the U.S., employing more than 40,000 associates 
in 19 states.
    As currently drafted, Goodyear opposes passage of H.R. 
1945, a bill which would suspend temporarily the duty on tire 
and rubber-related manufacturing equipment, because of its 
broad scope. While no floor statement accompanied the 
introduction of H.R. 1945, when a companion bill was introduced 
in the Senate (S. 915), Senator Thurmond indicated it was for 
the manufacture of earthmover tires. However, in reviewing the 
tariff classifications that are specified in H.R. 1945, 
Goodyear's technical staff has determined that the machinery in 
question could be used for any type of tire manufacture from 
auto passenger through earthmover tires, including farm 
equipment tires. These machines would also be capable of 
producing a wide range of engineered and automotive rubber 
products.
    Because of the broad scope of machinery for tire and 
related rubber products that could be imported into the U.S. 
duty-free under this bill, Goodyear opposes H.R. 1945 because 
it would place us at a competitive disadvantage. If passed, 
this temporary duty suspension bill would be in effect for 
three years, retroactive to May 1, 1997 as specified in the 
bill. Since there is no cap on the amount of machinery that can 
be imported into the U.S. during that three-year period and the 
scope of machinery covered includes all aspects of our 
business, Goodyear would be placed at a significant financial 
disadvantage. Goodyear, like many other tire companies, 
purchases its machines primarily from U.S. manufacturers and 
also imports some of its machinery from abroad. Goodyear has 
always paid duty on the machinery it imports.
    If this bill were to pass, there would be significant 
tariff revenue potentially lost to the U.S. Treasury. Any 
tariff revenue loss of over $500,000 is considered significant 
by your Committee and would have to have a budget offset. The 
tariff classifications covered under H.R. 1945 represent a 
significant portion of the machines needed for a typical 
earthmover plant whose total cost is a couple of hundred 
million dollars. The average U.S. tariff rate on this type of 
equipment is 3.4 percent. If the duty were to be suspended on 
these imported machines, the U.S. Treasury would lose more than 
$2.5 million.
    In conclusion, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is 
opposed to H.R. 1945 as currently drafted because the scope of 
the machinery involved is so broad that it could cover not only 
the example referenced above, a portion of the typical 
equipment for an earthmover plant, but could well include 
equipment for the manufacture of a wide range of tire and 
rubber-related products. Therefore, the $2.5 million revenue 
loss to the U.S. Treasury must be considered as the minimum and 
would in all probability be much more.

                                

      

H.R. 1947

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States with respect to shadow mask steel.

                                

                            LTV Steel Company, Inc.        
                                         Law Department    
                                   Cleveland, OH 44114-2308
                                                      July 25, 1997
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Sub Committee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: House of Representative Bill 1947

    Dear Mr. Crane:

    LTV Steel Company is strongly opposed to the adoption of House of 
Representative Bill 1947 which proposes to eliminate all tariffs on 
steel used for ``shadow masks.''
    LTV Steel is a U.S. producer of steel used for ``shadow masks.'' We 
sell this product to our customers including one of the few remaining 
U.S. companies who still produce steel product for aperture masks for 
television sets in the United States. The steel produced for our 
customers is in direct competition with imports of shadow mask steel 
from Japan. The elimination of the tariff on shadow mask steel would 
only encourage additional imports and would adversely affect sales.
    I would appreciate your taking appropriate action to defeat this 
bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                          Daniel R. Minnick
                                                    Senior Attorney

DRM/ltk/11694

                                

H.R. 1954

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain high tenacity 
single yarn of viscose rayon.

                see Hoechst Corporation under H.R. 1742

                see ICF Industries, Inc. under H.R. 1742

     see National Knitwear & Sportswear Association under H.R. 1742

             see North American Corporation under H.R. 1742

                                

H.R. 1973

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide for duty-free treatment of oxidized 
polyacrylonitrile fibers for use in aircraft brake components.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 2041

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2042

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2043

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2044

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2045

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2046

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2047

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
HIV/anti-AIDS drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2048

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
HIV/anti-AIDS drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

      

H.R. 2049

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

H.R. 2058

    To suspend temporarily the duty on phenmedipham.

                                

Comments of AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, Delaware

    AgrEvo USA Company (``AgrEvo'') appreciates the opportunity 
to submit to the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways 
and Means of the United States House of Representatives the 
following statement in support of H.R. 2058, H.R. 2059 and H.R. 
2060.

         I. The Purpose of H.R. 2058, H.R. 2059 and H.R. 2060.

    H.R. 2058 (pertaining to AgrEvo's agricultural chemical 
products containing Phenmedipham), H.R. 2059 (pertaining to 
AgrEvo product containing Ethofumesate) and H.R. 2060 
(pertaining to AgrEvo's agricultural chemical products 
containing Desmedipham) would suspend on a temporary basis the 
import duty on Phenmedipham Ethofumesate and Desmedipham (in 
bulk and packaged form). There are no other manufacturers in 
the United States of these three active ingredients. These 
bills have the support of Zeneca, Inc. and DuPont Agricultural 
Products, domestic competitors of AgrEvo, and are non-
controversial.

                            II. Background.

    AgrEvo is involved in the manufacture, distribution and 
sale of proprietary and/or patented agrichemical products 
including a wide range of defoliants, herbicides, insecticides 
and fungicides. These products are designed to assist American 
farmers in dealing with various weed species, crop-damaging 
insects and other threats to crop yield and product quality and 
are used in a wide variety of products, including tree fruit, 
sugar beets, cotton, corn and cereals.
    AgrEvo and its predecessors in interest have been in the 
agricultural chemicals business for many decades. AgrEvo 
operates an active ingredient manufacturing and formulation 
facility in Muskegon, Michigan, laboratory facilities in 
Goldsboro, North Carolina, product-testing farms in three 
states, regional and sales offices in five (ND,CA,FL,IL,NC) 
states and a corporate headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware. 
AgrEvo's products are sold in all fifty states.
    Phenmedipham, Desmedipham and Ethofumesate are proprietary 
and/or patented herbicides belonging to AgrEvo which are used 
extensively by farmers through out the United States. They are 
assets to farmers because they control a wide variety of weeds 
in sugar beets, grass seed, spinach and red table beets thereby 
promoting higher yields and quality crops. In order to deliver 
products containing Phenmedipham, Desmedipham and Ethofumesate 
in a safer (reduced user exposure) manner and in a more 
environmentally sound fashion, AgrEvo has introduced closed 
system, refillable, returnable containers which reduce the 
dependence on plastic disposable containers which are discarded 
in land fills, while also virtually eliminating any user 
product exposure.

  III. The Need for Duty Exemption for Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and 
                              Desmedipham.

    The agrichemical business in the United States is fiercely 
competitive. The temporary suspension of the duties on 
Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and Desmedipham would allow AgrEvo 
to compete in the marketplace more effectively by reducing the 
Company's production costs; additionally, it would permit the 
Company to spend more money on product development and plant 
and human resources enhancement.

IV. The Active Ingredients Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and Desmedipham: 
                    The Products and Their Utility.

    AgrEvo's products Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and 
Desmedipham are registered with the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (``EPA'') and cannot be sold in the United 
States without such registration. In an effort to better 
satisfy sugar beet grower's need to control specific weed 
problems AgrEvo currently sells seven products containing one 
or more of these active ingredients: BETANEX, 
BETAMIX, Betamix PROGRESS (now registered 
as ProgressTM), NORTRON SC, SPIN-
AID and PROGRASS. The EPA-approved labels 
for these products are attached at Exhibit 1.
     BETANEX is a post emergence sugar beet 
herbicide which contains a single active ingredient 
Desmedipham. It is used for control of a range of problematic 
broadleaf weeds especially redroot pigweed which is a specific 
weed problem in sugar beets grown in the Red River Valley of 
North Dakota and Minnesota.
     SPIN-AID, which contains Phenmedipham, 
is used as a post-emergence herbicide for the control of weeds 
found in spinach seed production and for weeds found in red 
beet production
     BETAMIX is a sugar beet herbicide which 
contains a mixture of two active ingredients Desmedipham 
(BETANEX) Phenmedipham (SPIN-AID). 
BETAMIX is a post-emergence herbicide which controls 
a broader spectrum of weeds than either Betanex or Spin-Aid 
used alone.
     Betamix PROGRESS (PROGRESSTM) 
is a post-emergence herbicide, containing Phenmedipham, 
Ethofumesate and Desmedipham as active ingredients. Betamix 
PROGRESS controls the broadest spectrum of weeds 
encountered in the production of sugar beets.
     NORTRON SC contains the active 
ingredient Ethofumesate alone and is used to control weeds in 
sugar beets and is used as a grass seed herbicide for selective 
control of weeds in certain grass seed crops and in commercial 
sod production in the Pacific Northwest. It is especially 
effective against annual broadleaf weeds found in sugar beet 
fields and against other annual grass weeds. NORTRON 
SC can be used as a pre-emergence herbicide or in post-
emergence situations, depending upon the weeds found and can be 
used in conjunction with the above products and with products 
manufactured by other entities.
     PROGRASS contains the active ingredient 
Ethofumesate alone and is used by professional applicators as a 
selective herbicide on ornamental turf only.
    The use of AgrEvo products containing one or more of the 
active ingredients referenced above is effective against a wide 
variety of persistent weeds which are extremely harmful to 
sugar beets and certain grass seed and spinach seed crops. The 
unique aspect of these AgrEvo products is that they are potent 
herbicides, alone or in combination with one another. 
Competitive products are less efficacious against the wide 
spectrum of weeds controlled by the AgrEvo products; thus, use 
of AgrEvo products results in the application of fewer chemical 
treatments of the farmers' land (thus reducing the volume of 
active ingredient necessary per acre).
    Also, all of these products can be applied using re-usable 
containers. The use of a re-usable container with the ``dry-
lock'' closed delivery coupler system limits farmer exposure to 
the active ingredient and is significantly less resource 
intensive than the use of disposable containers. AgrEvo devoted 
substantial resources to the development of a fleet of its re-
usable containers which utilize 15 gallon stainless steel SVR 
(small volume returnable) containers.

                   V. The Benefits of Tariff Removal

    In a larger competitive sense, removing costly import 
tariffs on Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and Desmedipham will 
provide greater flexibility for AgrEvo to utilize its 
production facility in Muskegon, Michigan to formulate new, 
complementary products at that facility and to continue its 
research and development of delivery systems that reduce worker 
exposure and reduce the environmental loading from the disposal 
of non-reusable packaging. The AgrEvo facility in Muskegon was 
the beneficiary of past duty exemption legislation which 
enabled the plant to maintain a stable and growing work force. 
In fact, AgrEvo is in the process of building a multi-million 
dollar plant expansion and enhancement for its Muskegon, 
Michigan facility, which will permit it to expand into the 
production of other proprietary products. Duty exemption for 
Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and Desmedipham could serve as a 
substantial enhancement to AgrEvo to perform formulation work 
at its Muskegon facility for which would complement the 
existing AgrEvo product line and would thus further enhance the 
competitive viability--and longevity--of that facility. 
Additionally, the projected savings on the reduction of import 
duties for these products will enable AgrEvo to engage in 
enhanced product formulation and metabolic testing functions 
for these and other products at its Goldsboro facility, thus 
enhancing its viability and utility to AgrEvo, and to the 
community of Goldsboro.

                             VI. Summation

    In summary, the temporary elimination of import tariffs on 
Phenmedipham, Ethofumesate and Desmedipham will enable AgrEvo 
to shore up its competitive footing in the industry, produce 
product on a more cost-efficient basis and pass these savings 
along to the farmer, who, in turn, will enhance production 
capabilities and farming efficiencies. These savings will be 
passed along to the consumer in direct product savings and in 
secondary savings of soil and environmental conservation. Since 
there are no other domestic manufacturers of these active 
ingredients, this legislation will have no adverse impact on 
U.S. producers. The reduction of these tariffs will also permit 
AgrEvo to better utilize and expand its production facilities 
at Muskegon, Michigan and at its testing facilities in 
Goldsboro, North Carolina, conserving, and possibly promoting, 
employment opportunities at those facilities.

    [Attachments are being retained in the Committee's files.]

                                

H.R. 2059

    To suspend temporarily the duty on ethofumesate.

                see AgrEvo USA Company under H.R. 2058.

                                

H.R. 2060

    To suspend temporarily the duty on desmedipham.

                see AgrEvo USA Company under H.R. 2058.