Rejected Merchandise Drawback: The One-Year Exception 

Understanding 1313(c) 

Rejected merchandise drawback under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(c) covers a specific situation: imported goods that don’t conform to sample or specifications. Sometimes called “retail drawback,” this provision applies when products are defective, unsellable, or otherwise fail to meet expectations and are subsequently re-exported or destroyed. 

This provision differs from unused merchandise drawback in a critical way: any product that could have been returned by a customer is considered “used” and must use 1313(c) rather than 1313(j). Customer returns anywhere in the supply chain trigger this requirement. 

The One-Year Limitation 

Unlike standard drawback’s five-year window, rejected merchandise drawback has only one year between import and export or destruction. This compressed timeline reflects the expectation that quality issues are discovered and addressed promptly—you shouldn’t be holding defective goods for years before acting. 

This shorter window catches many companies off guard. If you have customer returns or defective imports, the clock is ticking from the moment goods enter the country. Delays in processing returns can cause claims to expire. 

What Qualifies as Rejected? 

Goods qualify for 1313(c) if they don’t conform to sample—the delivered goods differ materially from pre-purchase samples, if they don’t meet specifications—products fail to meet agreed technical or quality specifications, if they’re defective—manufacturing defects render goods unsellable, or if they were shipped without consent—unauthorized shipments the importer didn’t order. 

The key is that rejection must be for legitimate commercial reasons, not simply because the importer changed their mind or market conditions shifted. 

Customer Returns Complications 

The “used” definition creates complications for retailers and distributors. If a customer purchases a product and returns it—even if unused and in original packaging—that product is considered “used” for drawback purposes and must use 1313(c) if re-exported. 

This means companies handling customer returns need tight processes to identify returned goods, track the one-year window from original import, and ensure proper drawback treatment. Many returns programs don’t currently capture this information. 

Documentation Specifics 

Rejected merchandise claims require documentation of the rejection reason—why goods failed to meet specifications or were otherwise unsuitable. This typically includes inspection reports, quality control documentation, correspondence with suppliers, or other evidence of the defect or nonconformance. 

This additional documentation burden, combined with the shorter timeline, makes rejected merchandise drawback more operationally demanding than other provisions. However, for companies with significant return flows, the refunds can be substantial. 

About TLR Drawback Services 

TLR’s drawback team combines decades of specialized experience with modern technology to maximize duty recovery for our clients. From program evaluation through claim filing and payment, we handle the complexity so you can focus on your business. Contact us to explore your drawback opportunity. 

Table of Contents

Taylor Wise

News & Updates

Related Posts

Client alert graphic about new CBP vetting requirements for foreign Importers of Record, featuring customs, shipping, air freight, and compliance imagery.

Client Alert: Foreign Importers of Record – New CBP Vetting Requirements Are Coming

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided additional information regarding implementation of Executive Order 14411, “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” signed June 3, 2026. The Executive Order directs significant changes to the requirements for Importers of Record (IORs), including heightened requirements for foreign IORs. TLR is a CTPAT-validated customs broker (CVCB) and is preparing for these changes. Foreign IOR clients should begin preparing as well. What Is Changing for Foreign IORs? Under Executive Order 14411, foreign IORs making formal entry into the United States will be required to either: CBP is now providing additional insight into

Read More »
Graphic for the BIS and DDTC transfer of certain firearm suppressors from ITAR to the EAR, featuring a suppressor, cargo ship, port crane, and U.S. government building.

Client Alert : BIS and DDTC Transfer Certain Firearm Suppressors from ITAR to the EAR

On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Commerce published complementary Interim Final Rules that significantly change the export controls applicable to certain firearm suppressors, also referred to as silencers or mufflers. Effective November 20, 2026, many suppressors currently controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations will instead be controlled under the Export Administration Regulations. The changes are intended to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining export controls through the Commerce Control List. What Is Changing? Certain Suppressors Move From ITAR to the EAR The Department of State is

Read More »
Logistics icons with the text IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: CIT Hearing Provides New Details on CAPE Expansion

IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: CIT Hearing Provides New Details on CAPE Expansion

The Court of International Trade (CIT) held another hearing on June 9, 2026, regarding the ongoing IEEPA tariff refund process. The hearing followed the court’s prior order requiring the government to explain why the CIT should not lift the stay of its earlier orders directing refunds of unlawfully collected IEEPA duties. While the court did not lift the stay at the hearing, the proceedings provided important updates regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) refund processing efforts and the next planned phases of the CAPE refund system. CBP Continues to Process Refunds Through CAPE CBP

Read More »
Image of logistics icons for IEEPA Tariff related update

IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: Government Signals Appeal of Refund Order

Recent developments in the ongoing IEEPA tariff refund litigation may significantly impact how importers pursue recovery of tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On May 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion in the Court of International Trade (CIT) that provided important insight into the government’s position regarding future IEEPA tariff refunds. While the motion itself sought to prevent CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott from testifying before the court, the filing also clarified the government’s intended approach to refunds and confirmed its plan to appeal portions of the

Read More »