Performance Additives, LLC v. United States

No. 2024-2059 · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · February 24, 2026 · No. 2024-2059

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment denying Performance Additives’ drawback claim. The court held that 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B) governs when designated or identified import entries have not become final within the statutory one-year period, preventing automatic deemed liquidation under § 1504(a)(2)(A).

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the Court
Wallach, Circuit Judge; Prost, Circuit Judge; Stark, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decision date
February 24, 2026
Docket number
2024-2059
Procedural posture
Performance Additives appealed the Court of International Trade's final judgment denying its drawback claim and granting the United States' cross-motion for summary judgment.
Standard of review
The Federal Circuit reviewed the Court of International Trade's summary-judgment decision without deference, reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, and reviewed factual findings for clear error.
Precedential value
Published Federal Circuit opinion
Parties
Performance Additives, LLC v. United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

statutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of reviewadministrative lawcommercial litigation

Practice areas

customs and international tradeadministrative lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedurecommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(A) automatically deemed Performance's drawback claim liquidated at its asserted amount when one year elapsed after filing, despite the underlying import entries not having become final.
  2. Whether the conditions in 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B) exclude operation of § 1504(a)(2)(A) when designated or identified import entries have not been liquidated and become final within the one-year period.
  3. Whether § 1504(a)(2)(B) can apply when the underlying import entries have been liquidated but remain non-final.

Holdings

  1. Under the plain text of § 1504(a)(2), subparagraph (A) does not apply when the conditions specified in subparagraph (B) are present; subparagraph (B) operates as an exception to the general one-year deemed-liquidation rule in subparagraph (A).
  2. Subparagraph (B) cannot be triggered until at least the end of the one-year period described in subparagraph (A).
  3. Subparagraph (B) applies when the underlying import entries have been liquidated but have not yet become final; therefore, Performance's drawback claim was not automatically deemed liquidated under subparagraph (A).

Key quotations

We hold that under the plain text of the statute, subparagraph (A) does not apply when the conditions set forth in (B) are present. (at 2)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B) . . . , unless an entry or claim for drawback is extended under subsection (b) or suspended as required by statute or court order, an entry or claim for drawback not liquidated within 1 year from the date of entry or claim shall be deemed liquidated at the drawback amount asserted by the claimant or claim. (at 8)
We hold, in our de novo review of the statute, subparagraph (B) cannot be triggered until at least the end of the 1-year period set out in subparagraph (A). (at 10)
As a result, subparagraph (B) applied, and subparagraph (A) was not operative. (at 12)

Factual background

Performance Additives filed a drawback claim on March 10, 2020, seeking $1,328,589.84 based on forty-eight consumption entries. By March 10, 2021, all underlying import entries had been liquidated, but some had not yet become final because the applicable 180-day period had not expired. Customs liquidated the drawback claim at zero drawback on April 30, 2021, and Performance argued that the claim had instead been deemed liquidated at its asserted amount one year after filing.

Procedural history

Performance Additives filed a petroleum-derivatives substitution drawback claim and protested Customs and Border Protection's liquidation of the claim at zero drawback. It then brought an action in the Court of International Trade. The Court of International Trade denied Performance's cross-motion for summary judgment, granted the Government's cross-motion, and denied judgment on the drawback claim. Performance appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…