This bill orders U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reliquidate specified past entries of a single golf‑cart tire model and to refund any duties paid, with interest. The package lists dozens of entry numbers across multiple importers and ports and instructs CBP to complete the work on a fixed timetable.
The measure is a classic private‑relief/targeted reliquidation bill: it corrects a prior classification outcome for a defined set of past imports rather than changing tariff law going forward. For companies named in the list it converts previously paid customs duties into refundable amounts; for CBP and the Treasury it creates an immediate administrative and budgetary obligation and may invite similar petitions in the future.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires CBP to reliquidate listed entries of K389 Hole‑N‑One golf‑cart tires at the duty rate corresponding to HTSUS subheading 4011.69.00 as of each entry’s date, and to refund any duties paid plus interest. It waives the usual time bar that would prevent reliquidation.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are the named importers and the specific entries enumerated in the bill (Monitor Manufacturing Co.; Martin Wheel; American Kenda; Americana Development dba Monitor/American Tire & Wheel/Martin Wheel). CBP must process the reliquidations; the Treasury will pay refunds. Customs brokers, sureties, and downstream distributors tied to those imports will also be involved operationally.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a statutory, retroactive exception to the Tariff Act’s liquidation time limit for a narrowly defined set of entries — a remedy that fixes past classification/collection outcomes but also bypasses ordinary administrative and judicial channels. That trade‑off matters for importers assessing political remedies, for CBP’s workload, and for agencies tracking precedent.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by reciting two Customs rulings: a New York Ruling Letter (NY N278164, Sept. 1, 2016) classifying the K389 Hole‑N‑One golf‑cart tire under HTSUS subheading 4011.69.00 (duty‑free as of that date), and a Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ H285180, May 22, 2017) that affirmed that classification. Those rulings form the factual predicate Congress cites for legislative relief.
Next the bill states a congressional view (a "sense of Congress") that CBP should be authorized to reliquidate duty‑paid entries consistent with the cited rulings when liquidation fell outside the statutory window. The operative grant of authority follows: the text tells CBP, notwithstanding statutory time limits, to reliquidate each listed entry at the duty rate applicable under HTSUS 4011.69.00 on the date the goods entered the United States and to refund any duties previously paid, plus interest.Procedurally the statute is tightly circumscribed.
It applies only to the entries identified in subsection (d), which are named by importer, importer number, entry number, entry date and port of entry. The bill names multiple importers (and multiple doing‑business‑as variants) and enumerates hundreds of entries spanning roughly 2009–2016 at numerous ports (Atlanta, Savannah, Cleveland, St. Louis, Los Angeles, etc.).
The bill also imposes a statutory deadline: CBP must complete reliquidation and pay refunds with interest within 90 days after the bill becomes law.Finally, the bill expressly overrides section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) — the standard time‑bar on reliquidation — and it uses broad language ("notwithstanding ... or any other provision of law") to prevent other statutory obstacles from blocking the refunds. It does not alter HTSUS generally, change tariff rates going forward, or create a new classification standard beyond the entries listed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expressly displaces the Tariff Act’s liquidation time limit (19 U.S.C. 1514) and any other statutory barrier to allow reliquidation of the named entries.
CBP must reliquidate the listed entries and issue refunds with interest within 90 days after the bill’s enactment—an explicit, short deadline.
Reliquidation is to occur at the rate applicable under HTSUS subheading 4011.69.00 on the date each entry was made (the bill ties the duty rate to the entry date rather than to any later tariff schedule).
The refunds must include interest on duties previously paid, but the bill does not set the interest rate or specify the statutory mechanism for calculating or distributing that interest.
Relief is limited to hundreds of individually enumerated entries across named importers and importer numbers (e.g.
Monitor Manufacturing Co.
Importer No. 31‑162600400; Martin Wheel, Importer No. 34‑082054800; American Kenda, Importer No. 31‑132072100; Americana Development and its DBAs, Importer numbers 31‑1234748MM / MW / AW).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings: CBP rulings underpin the request
This subsection records two Customs rulings—the New York ruling (Sept. 1, 2016) and a Headquarters affirmation (May 22, 2017)—that classified the K389 Hole‑N‑One golf‑cart tire under HTSUS 4011.69.00. That factual finding is the bill’s legal justification: Congress is saying those decisions identify the correct classification for the named product and therefore support retroactive corrective relief.
Sense of Congress encouraging reliquidation
Congress signals that CBP should be permitted to reliquidate duty‑paid entries consistent with the cited rulings where liquidation fell outside the ordinary statutory time frame. The subsection is non‑binding in isolation but frames the intent that the following operative subsection implements: it prefaces the targeted waiver of statutory time bars.
Operative command: reliquidation, refunds, and a 90‑day clock
This is the heart of the bill. It commands CBP, overriding standard time limits, to reliquidate each listed entry at the HTSUS 4011.69.00 duty rate in effect on the date of entry and to refund any duties paid with interest. The instruction includes a firm timeline: CBP must complete reliquidation and refunds within 90 days of enactment. The provision’s broad ‘‘notwithstanding ... or any other provision of law’’ language minimizes legal obstacles to payment but leaves implementation details to CBP and existing refund statutes.
Scope: the enumerated entries and named importers
Relief is strictly limited to the entries itemized in subsection (d). The bill does not delegate discretion to expand the list; it identifies entry numbers, dates, ports, and importer numbers across multiple importers and DBAs. Practically, CBP’s work is a mechanical, record‑driven exercise: locate each listed liquidation, reliquidate at the specified duty rate, and issue refunds—subject to whatever internal processes CBP uses to validate claims and pay refunds.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Trade across all five countries.
Explore Trade in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Named importers and their successors/assignees: the companies listed in subsection (d) (Monitor Manufacturing Co.; Martin Wheel; American Kenda; Americana Development and its DBAs) will receive refunds of duties they paid on the enumerated entries, plus interest, restoring cash that had been collected at liquidation.
- Sureties or payors that advanced duties: parties that actually paid duties on the listed entries (bond sureties or third‑party payors) will be eligible for refunds to the extent the duty payments can be traced to them.
- Customs brokers and trade counsel engaged on these transactions: they will see transactional and claims work to assemble records and submit documentation to CBP, and may realize fee revenue from effectuating the refunds.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Treasury: refunding duties with interest reduces net customs receipts for the years covered by the listed entries and creates a near‑term outlay tied to the bill’s 90‑day payment mandate.
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection: CBP must locate and reliquidate hundreds of specific historic entries and process refunds quickly, absorbing staff time and casework within the 90‑day window.
- Other importers and stakeholders seeking relief: while not a direct fiscal cost, the bill creates precedent and a possible pressure point for other parties to seek similar legislative fixes, which can raise administrative and budgetary burdens across agencies.
- Port offices and records custodians: local CBP ports and field offices will likely supply the underlying files and transaction records, increasing short‑term operational load.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between correcting perceived classification or collection errors for particular past imports (restoring money to parties who paid duties) and preserving the statutory finality that keeps customs administration predictable and administrable; legislated exceptions deliver relief in specific cases but weaken the rule that liquidations normally become final after the statutory window, increasing incentives for political remediation rather than routine administrative or judicial challenge.
The bill trades finality for specificity. By overriding the Tariff Act’s time bar and ordering retroactive refunds, Congress resolves these particular disputes in favor of the listed importers; it does not create a general rule for identical items entered by other parties.
That sharp, targeted remedy avoids litigation over classification for these entries but leaves unanswered whether similarly situated importers who are not named will have a remedy short of pursuing their own legislative relief or administrative litigation.
Implementation raises practical questions the text does not settle. The bill requires refunds with interest but does not identify the interest rate or the precise statutory mechanics for crediting payments against surety obligations, assigning refunds among co‑payors, or offsetting other liabilities.
The ‘‘notwithstanding ... any other provision of law’’ language is broad but not a procedural roadmap: CBP must still determine who holds the legal right to the refunded amounts, reconcile bonds, and follow appropriation and payment regulations. The 90‑day deadline is aggressive for several hundred entries; CBP will need clear prioritization, record retrieval, and perhaps additional resources to comply on time.
Finally, the bill creates a legislative precedent: Congress directly ordering reliquidation for a narrow product and set of entries. That approach solves a discrete fairness or technical classification problem but also invites future targeted bills and raises questions about whether systemic gaps in administrative or judicial review of tariff classifications should instead be addressed by process reform rather than episodic private relief.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.