What Do You Want From Me?

Right now, I am having editorial issues. Frankly, I have a bunch of blog-worthy material piled up. I need some time to sort through it and decide what to address. Or, in the alternative, I might do a series of very quick summaries and send you on your way with a link. It depends, I guess, on how I feel.

For one thing, keep in mind that the web site of my law firm, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, covers a lot of this in a more timely manner. I encourage you who visit here, to make a habit of visiting there regularly. So, I will leave it to the crack web master at BR&C to cover the news that Customs has extended the deadline for filing a C-TPAT supply chain security profile to October 1.

Another interesting thing happening is a renewed focus on intellectual property enforcement at the border. Customs made an announcement that it is working to support the US-EU Action Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. At about the same time, the new USTR announced a new focus on the protection of US intellectual property rights in foreign markets.

Guatemala is now functioning as a CAFTA-DR country. On June 28, the government of Peru approved the Trade Promotion Agreement with the US.

Judge Carman has likely given heartburn to every customhouse broker in the U.S. Judge Ridgeway has given something similar to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Musgrave has given us all renewed hope that maybe someday CBP will mitigate the interest in a prior disclosure case. And Ford? Well, Ford is not having a good run of luck at the moment. Oh, and nice effort trying to get the Court of Federal Claims to refund antidumping duties.

My goal is to cover these court cases in greater detail. I'll see what I can do.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry: Just fell upon your blog. I like it a lot. Yes, Judge Goldberg dished up another serving of our usual losses in court, but this week we seemed to have turned a corner. Judge Duggan in the ED Michigan dismissed an APTA forfeiture case and Ford filed suit under FOIA against Customs over their refusal to disclose our compliance record. At least this week has been some fun. And, btw, we've moved for reconsideration with Judge Goldberg. Paul Vandevert
Jul 27, 2006, 7:28:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more