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.

Comments

Anonymous 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?"
Jan 14, 2008, 11:23:00 AM
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