Performance Additives, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2059
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:22-cv-00044-JAR, Senior Judge Jane A. Re-
stani.
______________________
Decided: February 24, 2026
______________________
JOHN M. PETERSON , Neville Peterson LLP, New York,
NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
PATRICK K LEIN ; RICHARD F. O'NEILL, Seattle, WA.
ALEXANDER J. V ANDERWEIDE , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by B RIAN M. BOYNTON , PATRICIA M.
M CCARTHY, JUSTIN REINHART M ILLER; ALEXANDRA
K HREBTUKOVA , Y ELENA SLEPAK , Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, United States Customs and Border
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 1 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 2
Protection, United States Department of Homeland Secu-
rity, New York, NY.
______________________
Before PROST, WALLACH , and STARK , Circuit Judges.
WALLACH , Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Performance Additives, LLC,
(hereinafter, “Performance”) appeals from the final
judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade insofar
as it denied judgment for Performance’s drawback claim
entry BI00004498-1.1 This court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
This appeal requires us to perform statutory
interpretation to determine the applicability of 19 U.S.C.
§ 1504(a)(2)(A) and § 1504(a)(2)(B) to Performance’s
drawback claim. Did Customs & Border Protection
(hereinafter, “Customs”) act lawfully on April 30, 2021,
when it liquidated Performance’s drawback claim at the
amount of zero drawback; or, as Performance argues, was
its drawback claim “deemed” liquidated by
subparagraph (A) at Performance’s asserted rate, on
March 10, 2021?
We hold that under the plain text of the statute,
subparagraph (A) does not apply when the conditions set
forth in (B) are present. Here, the conditions of
§ 1504(a)(2)(B) were present because, inter alia, the
underlying import entries were not yet final. Thus,
Performance’s drawback claim was not automatically
liquidated under § 1504(a)(2)(A). Given there was not a
1 The Court of International Trade Judgement is in the
record at Appx0001, and the Decision is in the record at
Appx0002–20 and reported as Performance Additives, LLC
v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 3d 1385 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2024).
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 2 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 3
“deemed” liquidation, Customs did not act unlawfully by
liquidating the drawback claim.2
Therefore, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND3
A.
1.
Performance filed a drawback claim on March 10, 2020.
Appx0003. It was a claim for petroleum derivatives
substitution drawback and identified forty-eight
consumption entries for the claimed recovery of
$1,328,589.84 under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(p). Appx0002–3;
Opening Br. 2; Response Br. 8 & n.2.
2 Performance’s contention at the Court of
International Trade, and here, does not concern whether
Customs was correct on the merits in determining that
Performance was not entitled to any drawback on its claim.
Rather, Performance argues its claim had already been
deemed liquidated (on March 10, 2021) by operation of law
before Customs determined that the claim was not eligible
for drawback. For that reason, Performance argues,
Customs erred as a matter of law. Because that is the sole
issue on appeal, to focus our discussion, we assume without
deciding that Customs was otherwise correct on the merits.
3 Performance asserts that the facts are undisputed.
Opening Br. 2; Opening Br. 12. As explained in oral
argument, the Defendant-Appellee the United States
(hereinafter, “Government”) agreed the facts are
undisputed. Oral Arg. at 1:16–34, 17:19–51, 23:22–38
(available at: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-
arguments/24-2059_01082026.mp3).
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 3 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 4
2.
“Drawback” is defined in relevant part by Customs
regulations as “the refund or remission, in whole or in part,
of a customs duty, fee or internal revenue tax which was
imposed on imported merchandise under Federal law
because of its importation . . . .” 19 C.F.R. § 191.2(i). In
general, under the statute, Customs is required to provide
a drawback of up to 99% of the duties, fees, or taxes
imposed on imported merchandise if that merchandise (or
a commercially interchangeable substitute) is
subsequently exported, used in the manufacture of articles
which are subsequently exported, or when certain other
specified conditions are met. 19 U.S.C. § 1313; see, e.g.,
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 688 F.3d 1376, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2012); Appx0004; Response Br. 1. Drawbacks
“do not compensate for duty overpayments, but instead
help enforce the United States’ policy of ‘encourag[ing]
domestic manufacture of articles for export and . . .
allow[ing] those articles to compete fairly in the world
marketplace.’” Shell Oil, 688 F.3d at 1382 (alteration in
original) (quoting Hartog Foods Int’l, Inc. v. United States,
291 F.3d 789, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “[D]rawbacks are a
privilege, not a right.” Id.
“Drawback claim” means “the drawback entry and
related documents required by regulation which together
constitute the request for drawback payment.” 19 C.F.R.
§ 191.2(j). Given the nature of a drawback claim, there are
two relevant sets of “entries.” Ford Motor Co. v. United
States, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1330, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015).
One is the “drawback entry,” filed some time after
importation, and which regulations define as: “the
document containing a description of, and other required
information concerning, the exported . . . article on which
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 4 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 5
drawback is claimed.” 19 C.F.R. § 191.2(k).4 The other is
the “import entry” or entries (also known as the
“consumption entry” or entries) filed with Customs at the
time of importation. Ford, 44 F. Supp. 3d at 1335. Import
entries underlie, and are covered by, drawback claims. Id.
Our recent decision in Midwest-CBK provided this
background discussion of import entries.
The importer of record for merchandise,
with a few exceptions, is required to submit
“entries” for that merchandise to [Customs].
See 19 U.S.C. § 1484(a). An “entry” means
the “documentation or data required . . . to be
filed with [Customs] . . . to secure the release
of imported merchandise from [Customs’]
custody, or the act of filing that
documentation.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.0a(a).
Entries must undergo “liquidation” at the
time merchandise is brought into the United
States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1504. “Liquidation
means the final computation or
ascertainment of duties on entries . . . .”
19 C.F.R. § 159.1. . . . The usual rule is that,
absent a proper extension of the liquidation
deadline, “an entry of merchandise . . . not
liquidated within 1 year . . . shall be deemed
liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity,
and amount of duties asserted by the importer
4 “Technically, a ‘drawback entry’ is the form that a
drawback claimant files to request payment of drawback,
and is but one part of a ‘drawback claim.’” Ford,
44 F. Supp. 3d at 1335 n.8 (quoting 19 C.F.R.
§ 191.2(j)–(k)). The terms “drawback claim” and
“drawback entry” are sometimes used interchangeably.
See id. For clarity, the term “drawback claim” is used
generally throughout this Opinion.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 5 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 5 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 6
of record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1). The
Secretary of the Treasury is permitted to
extend the liquidation deadline if “the
information needed for the proper
appraisement or classification of the . . .
merchandise . . . is not available to the
Customs Service.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b)(1).
Customs is permitted to obtain up to three
such one-year extensions. 19 C.F.R.
§ 159.12(e).
Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States, 163 F.4th 1365,
1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (footnote omitted).
3.
As of March 10, 2021, one year after Performance filed
its drawback claim, the import entries underlying the
drawback claim had all liquidated—the latest of which
were liquidated on November 27, 2020—but they were not
all “final.” Appx0027; Response Br. 8; Oral Arg.
at 4:45–5:12. Generally, 180 days must pass before a
liquidated import entry is finalized, so the liquidation of
some of the designated import entries did not become final
until May 26, 2021 (i.e., 180 days from November 27, 2020).
Appx0027; Response Br. 14–15 (citing Appx0015).
On April 30, 2021, Customs liquidated the drawback
claim at the amount of zero drawback. Response Br. 8;
Appx0013; Oral Arg. at 1:16–34, 17:19–51, 23:22–38.
Performance protested. Appx0004. Performance then
commenced the action at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade issued its Opinion and
Final Judgment on May 31, 2024, in which it denied
Performance’s cross-motion for summary judgment,
granted the Government’s cross-motion for summary
judgment, and denied judgment for drawback claim, entry
BI00004498-1. Appx0019–20; Appx0001. The Court of
International Trade concluded that because the import
entries underlying Performance’s drawback claim “had not
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 6 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 6 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 7
been liquidated and become final within one year of the
filing of the drawback claim, subparagraph (A) did not
apply.” Appx0016. Performance appealed to this Court.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A.
We review the Court of International Trade’s decision
granting summary judgment “without deference.” Ford
Motor Co. v. United States, 157 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir.
1998). We review its interpretation of statutes de novo.
Midwest-CBK, 163 F.4th at 1369. We review factual
findings of the Court of International Trade for clear error.
StoreWALL, LLC v. United States, 644 F.3d 1358, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION
A.
1.
To interpret the statute, we first turn to its text. See
2A Sutherland Statutes & Statutory Construction § 46:1
(7th ed. Nov. 2025 update) (“[T]he meaning of the statute
must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in
which the act is framed, and if that is plain, . . . the sole
function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.”
(second alteration in original) (citation omitted)). The
deemed liquidation of drawback claims under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1504(a)(2)(A) and § 1504(a)(2)(B) is at the core of this
appeal, and so both those subparagraphs are quoted below.
§1504. Limitation on liquidation
(a) Liquidation
. . . .
(2) Entries or claims for drawback
(A) In general
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 7 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 7 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 8
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.
Notwithstanding section 1500(e) of this
title, notice of liquidation need not be
given of an entry deemed liquidated.
(B) Unliquidated imports
An entry or claim for drawback whose
designated or identified import entries
have not been liquidated and become final
within the 1-year period described in
subparagraph (A), . . . shall be deemed
liquidated upon the deposit of estimated
duties on the unliquidated imported
merchandise, and upon the filing with the
Customs Service of a written request for
the liquidation of the drawback entry or
claim. Such a request must include a
waiver of any right to payment or refund
under other provisions of law. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe
any necessary regulations for the purpose
of administering this subparagraph.
19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B).
Subparagraph (B) hinges on import entries.
Subparagraph (B) applies to drawback claims with import
entries that: one, “have not been liquidated,” and, two,
“have not . . . become final.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B).
When subparagraph (B) applies, a drawback claimant has
steps they may take, upon which, the drawback claim shall
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 8 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 8 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 9
be deemed liquidated. These steps include: “the deposit of
estimated duties on the unliquidated imported
merchandise, and . . . the filing with the Customs Service
of a written request for the liquidation of the drawback
entry or claim.” Id. It is undisputed Performance did not
take all of the steps in subparagraph (B). E.g., Oral Arg.
at 8:15–32, 11:12–28; Response Br. 27 & n. 5; Appx0013.
2.
By its own terms, subparagraph (A) applies “[e]xcept”
under certain conditions such as,5 relevant here: when
subparagraph (B)’s conditions are present. That
subparagraph (B) would apply to the exclusion of
subparagraph (A), flows from the text of the two
subparagraphs. Certainly, § 1504(a)(2)(A) generally
provides that a claim for drawback is deemed liquidated
after one year of the claim date, but it does so by beginning
that it operates: “Except as provided in
subparagraph (B) . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(A); see
Response Br. 13.
The Supreme Court has noted that “[t]housands of
statutory provisions use the phrase ‘except as provided
in . . .’ followed by a cross-reference in order to indicate that
one rule should prevail over another in any circumstance
in which the two conflict.” Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian,
590 U.S. 1, 16 (2020) (citation omitted).
Nonetheless, Performance argues that
subparagraph (A) is freestanding and independent from
every other part of the statute. Performance asserts “there
is no specific connector which would import the conditions
5 Subparagraph (C) (i.e., 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(C)), for
drawback claims filed before December 3, 2004, and
subsection (b) (i.e., 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b)), for the Secretary
of the Treasury to extend for a limited time the period in
which to liquidate, are not at issue in this appeal.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 9 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 9 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 10
of 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B) into § 1504(a)(2)(A).” Reply
Br. 13. That is mistaken in light of subparagraph (A)’s
“[e]xcept” clause.
Performance argues that subparagraph (B) merely
describes a non-exclusive alternative to subparagraph (A),
but we disagree. Congress created “a two-track
framework”—“two avenues for eligible unliquidated
drawback claims to become deemed liquidated a year after
their filing,” but these are exclusive avenues. Response Br.
at 11, 14. The text of the statute provides for
circumstances—such as this one—in which one
subparagraph prevails over the other. Performance’s
argument that subparagraph (B) could be non-exclusive to
subparagraph (A) is premised on its mistaken argument
that under (B), “deemed liquidation” may occur before the
one-year period set out in § 1504(a)(2)(A). Opening Br.
17–18; Reply Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 16; Oral Arg.
at 8:32–9:26. This is contradicted by the text of
subparagraph (B) stating in relevant part: a “claim for
drawback whose . . . import entries have not . . . become
final within the 1-year period described in
subparagraph (A)”—(i.e., within 1 year from the date of the
drawback entry or claim)—“shall be deemed liquidated
upon the” completion of certain steps with Customs.
19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added); see also Ford,
44 F. Supp. 3d at 1344.
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). We also
note that the Court of International Trade held the same,
Appx0016 n.12 (“[T]he availability of the elective
subparagraph (B) procedure cannot arise until after the
close of the one-year period following filing of the claim.”),
and the Government argued the same, Oral Arg.
at 21:49–23:12.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 10 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 10 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 11
B.
Policy supports this interpretation of the text.6 We
agree with the way the Court of International Trade
explained this policy point as: the interpretation “makes
sense because Customs knows what drawback is owed on
the consumption entries only when they are final.”
Appx0016. The Government, too, argues that until import
entries are final, “drawback claims covering those entries
are not ripe for liquidation under subparagraph (A).”
Response Br. 20. By establishing drawback claims cannot
be deemed liquidated at the drawback amount asserted by
the claimant or claim until the designated import entries
are first finalized, the interpretation dictated by the text
avoids “refunding collected duties on the same import
entries twice.” Response Br. 20–21; see also Oral Arg.
at 15:33–16:20.
C.
Applying this interpretation to the facts here,
subparagraph (B) controlled Performance’s drawback
claim because the drawback claim met the statutory
criteria for triggering that subparagraph—it was a
drawback claim “whose designated or identified import
entries ha[d] not been liquidated and become final within
the 1-year period.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B). Indeed, it is
undisputed Performance’s drawback claim referenced
import entries that were liquidated but not “final.”
Response Br. 14–15; Appx0027; Oral Arg. at 4:45–5:12. As
6 “Even formidable policy arguments do not overcome a
clear statutory directive.” 2B Sutherland Statutes &
Statutory Construction § 56:1 n.14 (7th ed. Nov. 2025
update) (citation omitted). However, here, the statute’s
text has a plain meaning that is also consistent with public
policy.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 11 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 11 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 12
a result, subparagraph (B) applied, and subparagraph (A)
was not operative.
The record shows that from March 10, 2021, until the
liquidation on April 30, 2021, the drawback claim was over
one year old and had non-final import entries. The
Government emphasizes that while Performance’s
drawback claims were not automatically deemed
liquidated under (A) because they fell under (B), the
statute provides steps Performance could have taken to
liquidate the drawback claims but did not. Response
Br. 27 & n.5. The Court of International Trade similarly
noted that Performance had chosen not to satisfy the steps
of subparagraph (B). Appx0011; Appx0014–15.
Performance could have followed the steps to cause the
drawback claim to be “deemed liquidated” under (B).
19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B); Appx0013. Performance argues
that it could not have taken steps to deem liquidate the
drawback claims under subparagraph (B) because all its
claim’s imported entries were liquidated. Opening Br. 18;
Reply Br. 14; Oral Arg. at 25:57–26:11; see also Oral Arg.
at 8:15–32, 11:12–28. Performance’s contention that its
liquidated-but-not-final import entries prevented it from
taking advantage of subparagraph (B) because that
subparagraph allegedly lost applicability when the
underlying import entries became liquidated is based on
two misreadings of the statute.
First, Performance mistakenly asserts that (a)(2)(B)
can only be triggered when import entries were neither
liquidated nor final. Reply Br. 14. This is contradicted by
the text of the statute, which provides that
subparagraph (B) may be invoked for an “entry or claim for
drawback whose designated or identified import entries
have not been liquidated and become final within the
1-year period described in subparagraph (A).” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1504(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). That is, (B) governs
when either of two conditions exist: that the import entries,
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 12 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 12 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 13
either, “have not been liquidated” or, “have not . . . become
final.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B).
Second, Performance mistakenly asserts that its
reading can be inferred from (a)(2)(B) specifying that “an
applicant for deemed liquidation must make payment of
‘estimated duties’”—which Performance says is “a concept
relevant only to unliquidated entries.” Reply Br. 14 (first
emphasis added). We disagree. Once an entry liquidates,
related duties are still subject to protest. See Reply Br. 14;
see also Oral Arg. at 20:41–21:15.7 We interpret (a)(2)(B)’s
reference to “estimated duties” to refer to non-final import
duties. Even when they are solely liquidated, they are also
non-final; hence, they could only be estimated.8
7 “Generally, the liquidation of an import entry
becomes final and conclusive 180 days after the date that
it liquidates, unless a protest is filed to challenge that
liquidation (or some other protestable decision that CBP
rendered on the entry).” Response Br. 3 (citing 19 U.S.C.
§ 1514(a), (c)).
8 Our interpretation of “estimated duties” in
subparagraph (B) is limited to that subparagraph. The
Government points out that under 19 U.S.C. § 1505(a),
estimated duties are required to be deposited on
unliquidated imported merchandise at or near the time of
entry of the merchandise. Indeed, the Government
contends that “estimated duties were deposited on the
import entries subject to Performance’s drawback claim, as
is required for all import entries.” Response Br. 27.
Estimated duties will generally already be deposited before
import entries are liquidated but not yet final, and before
a drawback claim covering those entries becomes eligible
for deemed liquidation under any provision of
section 1504(a)(2). Response Br. 24–25.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 13 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 13 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 14
D.
Particularly given our preceding analysis, relying on
legislative history is unnecessary. Nevertheless, for
completeness, we address the parties’ dispute on whether
the legislative history supports their position.
Performance argues “[t]he law’s intent is not to limit
‘deemed liquidations’ of drawback claims, but to expand
the opportunity to obtain them.” E.g., Reply Br. 16. In
essence, this is a maximalist reading of § 1504(a)(2)(A)—
that § 1504(a)(2)(A) results in drawback claims being
deemed liquidated “on the one-year anniversary of the
claim’s filing. Hard stop.” Reply Br. 11; see also Reply
Br. 6–7 (arguing subparagraph (B) “does not limit or
condition” subparagraph (A) “in any way”). Performance
asserts that drawback claims should automatically be
deemed liquidated upon the one-year anniversary because,
allegedly, the legislative history indicates that Congress
intended to impose the same one-year limitation on
liquidation of drawback claims that it had years earlier
imposed on the liquidation of import entries in 19 U.S.C.
§ 1504(a)(1).9 Opening Br. 13–14. For support,
Performance points to a Senate Report that the 2004
Amendment would “requir[e] U.S. Customs . . . to liquidate
future drawback claims within a specified period of time,
9 While this appeal concerns deemed liquidation of
drawback claims under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(A)–(B),
deemed liquidation of entries of merchandise for
consumption (also called import entries) arise under
19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(1),
deemed liquidation of import entries occurs within 1 year
from the date of entry of the merchandise (unless extended
for up to three (3) one-year extensions), and it has been that
way since 1978—well before the 2004 legislation that
added the provisions at issue here. Opening
Br. 12–13 & n.6.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 14 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 14 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 15
as U.S. Customs already does for merchandise entered for
consumption.” S. Rep. No. 108-28 at 172–73 (2003)
(emphasis added). Performance further argues that the
Government’s position forces its drawback claim to exist
“out of the operation of Congress’ statutory framework for
the liquidation of drawback entries altogether.” Reply
Br. 14–15.
The Government disagrees with Performance’s
interpretation. While the Government notes
§ 1504(a)(2)(A) “echoes the singular deemed liquidation
provision for import entries under section 1504(a)(1),” “the
liquidation of drawback claims is not always cut and dry
when the liabilities of the underlying import entries
remain outstanding,” which is why “Congress addressed
this particular scenario unique to drawback claims with
the enactment of section 1504(a)(2)(B), which sets forth
certain safeguards” until “all issues concerning the
particular import entries have been resolved.” See
Response Br. 30–31 (emphasis added).
The Government emphasizes that its interpretation
does not frustrate Congressional purpose. Although
certain drawback claims at the one-year anniversary may
be eligible for subparagraph (B), and not (A), and because
of that certain “statutory and regulatory safety
mechanisms” must be “affirmatively invoked and complied
with,” that does not take away that drawback claimants do
have steps they can take to achieve drawback under
§ 1504(a)(2)(B). Response Br. 28–29; Oral Arg.
at 19:00–20:32. Thus, the Government emphasizes there
is not a class of drawback claims that are not subject to any
time limitation. Response Br. 28–29.
Performance’s maximalist reading of § 1504(a)(2)(A) is
unpersuasive. Ostensibly drawn from legislative history,
Performance’s argument is contradicted by the text of
§ 1504(a)(2)(A)’s carveout of “[e]xcept as provided in
subparagraph (B),” as well as other indicia of legislative
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 15 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 15 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 16
intent. Performance’s assertion that the intent was wholly
to expand deemed liquidation mischaracterizes the import
of the legislative history. The law’s intent is clearly to
provide some limits on deemed liquidation. Certainly, the
2004 Senate Report accompanying the relevant
Amendment noted that “Existing law . . . does not require
the liquidation of drawback claims within a statutory time
frame. As a result, drawback claims are generally not
liquidated by U.S. Customs within a reasonable period of
time.” S. Rep. No. 108-28 at 172 (2003). The law changed
to require U.S. Customs “to liquidate future drawback
claims within a specified period of time,” id. at 173, but it
does not follow, however, that any ambiguities or
interpretative doubts must be resolved in favor of no
limitations on deemed liquidations, as Performance’s
argument implies. It is undisputed Congress expanded the
opportunities to deem liquidation, but in doing so Congress
imposed limits. Notably, it imposed the “[e]xcept[ion]” for
drawback claims whose import entries had not been
liquidated and become final. 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(A)–(B).
Although the legislative history indicates the 2004
Amendment causes deemed-liquidation of drawback
claims “within a specified period of time,” it does not
provide a one-year-specific time frame to all claims,
regardless of the status of the underlying import entries.
S. Rep. No. 108-28 at 172–73 (2003). Even in the absence
of affirmative steps by the drawback claimant or Customs,
within certain specified times that are safeguarded by the
statute, import entries will be deemed liquidated (under
§ 1504(a)(1)) and trigger a time limit for the drawback
claims to be deemed liquidated in due course, too (under
§ 1504(a)(2)(A)). The liquidation of a drawback claim
follows finality of import entries, but not necessarily
immediately; with too much delay, in any event, a
drawback claim will be deemed liquidated, as Congress
intended.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 16 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 16 of 17 --

PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES , LLC v. US 17
IV. CONCLUSION
We have considered Performance’s remaining
arguments, and do not find them persuasive or do not need
to reach them. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the
decision of the Court of International Trade is:
AFFIRMED.
Case: 24-2059 Document: 35 Page: 17 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 17 of 17 --