Monday, January 07, 2008

Did You Miss Me?

I am back from the tour of Orlando theme parks.

I'll assume you are all up-to-date on the fact that Customs and Border Protection finally published some details on the 10+2 data requirements. If not, read this.

A couple other things of interest:

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had to deal with a problem relating to the Court of International Trade's electronic filing system. In brief, the lawyer did not successfully file an appeal in the system. The CAFC decided that a defective notice of appeal means the case never left the CIT, which can, therefore, act on the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time in which to file the appeal. There is not much law here, it is just interesting because it is the first case I recall seeing relating to the CM/ECF system.

In another case, the CAFC upheld a CBP regulation requiring notice of intent to export for unused merchandise drawback claims. This case has to do with rulemaking authority and is mostly interesting as proof of what I often tell law students: The most important (by which I mean "useful") class I took in law school had nothing to do with international law or international business transactions, it was Administrative Law.

And, just to give you compliance managers out there more evidence that compliance can save money in the long run, here is another case in which the Court of International Trade assessed the maximum penalty against importers who, in this case, did not properly report that their imports were subject to antidumping duties.

1 comment:

Matt said...

Re the latest penalty case on dumping, I agree compliance saves money. It also helps to not engage in fraudulent misrepresentation in writing. This must fall into that huge category of cases entitled "What Were They Thinking?"