## Facts

- Between 1998 and 2002, Delphi Petroleum, Inc. filed five substitution drawback entries under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(p) covering imported petroleum products that were later exported as acceptable substitute finished petroleum derivatives.
- At the time, Customs regulations stated that Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) were not refundable as drawback, even though case law and later statutory changes created uncertainty about whether those fees were recoverable.
- Delphi’s drawback paperwork did not list HMT or MPF as amounts claimed, but Delphi attached letters stating it was not waiving any claim to HMT/MPF drawback and that it expected to seek those fees later by filing a protest after the duty drawback was paid and the related litigation/policy questions were resolved.
- Delphi alleged a Customs drawback official instructed Delphi to proceed in that manner—exclude HMT/MPF from the initial drawback claim and later seek them through protest—because Customs was treating the issue as unsettled.
- Customs processed Delphi’s drawback entries and, in 2003, refunded 99% of the duties associated with the qualifying drawback claims.
- After receiving the duty drawback, Delphi filed a protest seeking drawback of HMT and MPF tied to the same entries.
- Customs denied the HMT/MPF requests for exports occurring more than three years before the protest (including exports before mid‑2000), treating the protest as an untimely drawback claim under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1).
- Delphi filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), challenging Customs’ denial; both sides moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Delphi’s request for HMT/MPF drawback was barred by the three‑year filing limit in 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1), or whether the statute’s extension provision applied because Customs was “responsible” for the delayed filing.
2. Whether Delphi could pursue HMT/MPF drawback through a post‑payment protest where Customs’ actions and guidance led Delphi to postpone making a formal claim for those fees.

## Decision

- The Court of International Trade granted Delphi’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Government’s cross‑motion.
- The court held Delphi’s HMT/MPF drawback requests were not time‑barred under § 1313(r)(1) because the statute permits an extension when Customs is responsible for the delay in filing.
- The court concluded that, given the regulatory posture, agency delay, and Customs personnel’s directions to wait and pursue the fees later, Customs could not deny the HMT/MPF claims solely on the ground that more than three years had passed since exportation.
- The court ordered relief consistent with its ruling, requiring Customs to process Delphi’s HMT/MPF drawback claims rather than reject them as untimely.

## Legal Principles

- A drawback claim generally must be filed within three years of exportation or destruction, but 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1) includes a statutory time extension where Customs is responsible for the failure to file within that period.
- The “Customs is responsible” clause can apply when Customs’ own conduct materially contributes to the claimant’s late filing, including agency delay and instructions that reasonably cause a claimant to postpone filing.
- When the statutory extension applies, Customs may not invoke the three‑year bar to deny drawback solely because the formal request for a particular refund component (here, HMT/MPF) was made after the three‑year period.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the material facts about the agency’s conduct and the timing of filings are not genuinely disputed and the dispute turns on the meaning and application of the statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that Delphi’s HMT and MPF drawback requests were timely under the time‑extension language in 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1) because Customs’ actions—including delay and guidance that Delphi should wait and seek the fees later—made Customs responsible for the late filing; therefore, Customs could not deny the claims as barred by the three‑year limit.


Delphi Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (2009)