[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2114. A bill to exempt certain entries of titanium disks from 
antidumping duties retroactively applied by the United States Customs 
Service; to the Committee on Finance.


            legislation relating to a tariff classification

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a 
technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron 
Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by 
Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion 
to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of 
Representatives.

  Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is 
a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, 
used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two 
employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business 
operation.
  When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium 
not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific 
found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import 
experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain 
titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification 
Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' 
Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, 
and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of 
its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked 
its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an 
additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments 
had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's 
customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected 
duties.
  Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order 
is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. 
The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in 
obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and 
relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and 
selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by 
the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay 
antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the 
antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron 
Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to 
retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness.
  The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical 
error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive 
application of antidumping duties.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2114

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF TITANIUM DISKS.

         (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 15144) or any other provision 
     of law, the United States Customs Service shall--
       (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the entries listed in 
     subsection (b) as exempt from antidumping duties under 
     antidumping case number A-462-103; and
       (2) not later than 90 days after such liquidation or 
     reliquidation under paragraph (1), refund any antidumping 
     duties paid with respect to such entries, including interest 
     from the date of entry, if the importer of the entries files 
     a request therefor with the Customs Service within such 90-
     day period.
       (b) Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) are 
     as follows:

        Entry Number                                      Date of Entry
EE1-0001115-8..........................................January 26, 1995
EE1-0001313-9.............................................June 23, 1995
EE1-0001449-1........................................September 25, 1995
                                 ______