drawback on any “duty, tax, or fee that is assessed in a nondiscriminatory fashion against all shipments” — not just imports — “utilizing ports.” See Texport Oil Co. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1291, 1295-97 (Fed.Cir.1999). Texport ruled the Merchandise Processing Fee (“MPF”) to be eligible for drawback, concluding that the MPF “is explicitly linked to import activities.” See Texport, 185 F.3d at 1296. On the other hand, reasoning that the HMT is “assessed in a nondiscriminatory fashion against all shipments utilizing the ports” (not just imports), Texport ruled the HMT to be ineligible for drawback. See Texport, 185 F.3d at 1296-97. George E. Warren held the ET to be ineligible for drawback, for similar reasons. See George E. Warren Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 1348 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In December 2004, Congress amended the
holding et ineligible for drawback and ruling reversal of texport unwarranted holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice holding reversal unwarranted in circumstantial evidence case absent substantial trial error holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence