Earlier this week, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued further guidance on the procedures for importers to take the lower tax rates and credits available under the Craft Beverage Modernization Act (CBMA).

Key points of the new guidance:

  1. CBP will process drawback claims on an oldest-entry-first basis.
  2. Failure to substantiate drawback claims by January 31, 2019, risks a loss of the CBMA rates/credits for the entries in question.
  3. Going forward, every entry seeking to claim CBMA rates/credits must be accompanied by a CBMA Spreadsheet based on a template provided by CBP.
  4. Each importer must also submit a Controlled Group Spreadsheet, based on a template provided by CBP, for each controlled group it belongs to (foreign producers have the option of providing this information directly to CBP). Importers are responsible for immediately reporting to CBP any changes to the information in the Controlled Group Spreadsheet.
  5. Each foreign producer must provide their importer or CBP with an Assignment Certification based on a template provided by CBP.

With this guidance, importers can now start benefiting from the CBMA lower rates and credits on entries going forward, and make drawback claims for imports entered since January 1, 2018.

On September 18, 2018, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued TTB Industry Guidance 2018-10, a webpage consisting of questions and answers related to formulas. According to TTB, this new guidance “essentially replaces” Industry Circular 2007-4, which provided the framework for pre-COLA product evaluations. TTB has removed Industry Circular 2007-4 from its website.

The release of Industry Guidance 2018-10 comes with troubling implications. TTB has essentially revoked an Industry Circular signed by TTB Administrator John Manfreda and replaced it with a series Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with no clear authorship or authority. Furthermore, they have deleted Industry Circular 2007-4, preventing industry members from reviewing how these FAQs differ or alter the previous method for determining when formulas are required. Indeed, TTB seems to be significantly expanding the types of products that require formula approval. TTB notes in the new FAQs that “there may be circumstances when we will require a formula . . . even though the product does not generally require a formula.” See Industry Guidance 2018-10, FAB4.

TTB has recently required formulas for products, such as particular varieties of mezcal and spirits aged in previously used cooperage, where formulas were not previously required. It appears where no regulatory restrictions on aging (e.g., length of time or type of barrel) exists for a particular type/class of distilled spirits, TTB will more than likely request a formula approval prior to reviewing a Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) application. Some products may not require a formula if the label text only specifies the type of barrel used for aging, i.e., “Aged in used bourbon barrels.” But if the label mentions any attribute the aging provides to the liquid (e.g., “notes of sweet corn” or “hints of charred wood”) then TTB will likely require a formula.

Although TTB previously made strides in increasing speeds in which COLAs and formulas were reviewed, these new requirements will increase the compliance workload and approval timelines for TTB as well as alcohol beverage industry members. In addition to the challenges created by increasing the number of products requiring formulas, more questions are likely to arise under the anonymous FAQs, which replaced the longstanding protocols in Industry Circular 2007-4.

During the International Wine Association’s 2018 Conference, Marc Sorini presented on the latest law developments, including the Commerce Clause and First Amendment.

The topic was made particularly timely by the Supreme Court’s September 27 decision to grant certiorari review of the Byrd v. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association decision.

View the full presentation.

Last week Customs & Border Protection (CBP) issued additional guidance on the Craft Beverage Modernization Act (CBMA) rules for applying the CBMA lower excise tax rates (for beer and distilled spirits) and credits (for wine) to alcohol beverages imported from other countries.

The new guidance provides further clarity on the procedures required to make claims for drawback (refund) of taxes paid at the non-CBMA rate on product imported since the beginning of calendar 2018. It also indicates that CBP expects to provide additional guidance this month (October) on taking the lower rates and credits contemporaneously with importing additional product going forward. Among other things, CBP apparently will soon publish: (1) a Controlled Group Spreadsheet to track eligibility for the lower rates and credits; and (2) an Assignment Certification that foreign producers must execute and their importers must file in order to claim the CBMA lower rates and credits.

In short, if CBP can keep to its timetable, importers can begin claiming the lower CBMA rates and credits by the end of the month.

As beverage manufacturers mull the creation and distribution of cannabidiol (CBD)-infused products, the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) recent actions regarding an approved CBD drug merit exploration. CBD is one of many chemicals in the cannabis plant, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that CBD does not produce the same euphoric effect as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s psychoactive component.

In June, FDA approved the first drug comprised of an active ingredient (CBD) derived from marijuana, Epidiolex. FDA approved the CBD oral solution for patients two years of age and older who have seizures associated with two forms of severe epilepsy. According to DEA and FDA, the CBD in Epidiolex is extracted from the cannabis plant and is a purified drug substance. Though it is derived from the cannabis plant, the FDA-approved drug has no more than 0.1 percent residual THC.

Last week, DEA announced an order scheduling Epidiolex under the least restrictive schedule of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), schedule V. Notably, DEA still considers marijuana (which includes industrial hemp) and marijuana compounds other than Epidiolex to be schedule I controlled substances under the CSA. As a result, beverage manufacturers should carefully consider all legal implications prior to developing products that contain CBD. Continue Reading DEA Schedules a FDA-Approved CBD Drug

Craft distillers know the value of a good trademark. The name of a particular spirit, a logo, or a label design can be vitally important to a brand’s identity (and a distiller’s bottom line).  They also know how complicated—and legally fraught—branding can be. For better or worse, trademark disputes involving alcohol beverage products are becoming increasingly common. The disputes that make it to court provide valuable insight that could prevent future legal headaches surrounding the selection, protection, and enforcement of alcohol beverage trademarks.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Fall 2018.

The recent US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan opinion strikes down a Michigan statue and authorizes out-of-state retailers to sell and ship wine directly to Michigan consumers. Lebamoff Enterprises v. Snyder, E.D. Mich. Case No. 17-10191 (Sept. 28, 2018). More fundamentally, the Lebamoff decision underscores the stakes in the upcoming (as of September 27) Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Byrd v. Tenn. Wine and Spirits Retailers Ass’n.

The Lebamoff case involves 2016 legislation that amended Michigan law to: (1) make it easier for in-state retailers to ship directly to consumers by employing third-party carriers and (2) prohibit completely the sale and shipment of alcohol beverages to Michigan consumers by out-of-state retailers. The plaintiffs include an Indiana retail chain, its owner and several Michigan wine consumers.

The Lebamoff opinion first recaps the familiar dormant Commerce Clause analysis that: (a) asks whether the challenged law discriminates against interstate commerce or favors in-state interests over out-of-state interests; and (b) examines the state’s justifications for the law to see if they advance a legitimate local purpose that reasonable alternatives cannot adequately advance. Not surprisingly, the district court had little trouble concluding that the challenged law—which facially discriminates between in-state and out-of-state retailers—favors in-state interests and discriminates against interstate commerce. Continue Reading Recent Retailer Direct Shipping Opinion Illustrates Stakes in Upcoming Supreme Court Review

The “final word” may be in sight in a long-running dispute over state residency requirements imposed on applicants for retail alcohol beverage licenses as well as more fundamental questions about state powers under the 21st Amendment.

As anticipated last July in the Alcohol Law Advisor blog, a single sentence order of the US Supreme Court issued on September 27 granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (Tennessee Retailers) requesting the high court to review lower court decisions that invalidated Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for retail license applicants.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the Tennessee law at issue and held that, “a three-tier system can still function” without the two-year durational residency restriction imposed by Tennessee. The 6th Circuit quoted a 1984 Supreme Court decision: “The central purpose of the [Twenty-first Amendment] was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.” The court went on to analyze the Tennessee restrictions and found that they violate the dormant commerce clause, a legal concept designed to prevent states from engaging in economic protectionism. Continue Reading US Supreme Court to Review State Residency Requirements

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) expects to publish tomorrow Interim Regulations authorizing the refund of beer, wine, and spirits excise taxes in connection with the 2017 tax reform act’s reduced rates and credits. The Interim Regulations specify:

  1. Claims must be filed with the National Revenue Center of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).
  2. Claims must be filed on TTB Form 5620.8.
  3. A separate claim is required for entries made at each US port or internal revenue region.

The interim regulations will be effective on the date of publication (expected to be August 16, 2018).

CBP also initiated a 60-day comment period that will provide interested parties with opportunities to raise questions or identify issues that are not addressed in the interim regulations.

Please let us know if you have any questions about this development.