The Pen Is Stronger

I found this Customs and Border Protection ruling to be interesting in a let's-keep-the-basic-in-mind kind of way. It involves the country of origin marking on pens. The pens were marked in raised letters on the barrel but the marking was in the same color as the pen. Customs calls this "blind marking." Also, the marking--as one would expect on a pen--was quite small; just 1/16 by 1/4 of an inch. Lastly, the pens were to be decorated with logos or slogans and were, at the time of importation, printed with an identifier for the pen style.

It's this last part that seems to have been the problem for the importer. Customs held that the small, blind marking was not sufficiently conspicuous. Part of its reasoning seems to be that the pen is designed and intended to have more conspicuous printing applied to it. Customs, therefore, required a better marking and suggested contrasting colors.

This is the great part: As evidence of acceptable marking, counsel for the importer placed before Customs a pen CBP distributed at an ACE event. If its good enough for CBP, the argument goes, it should be good enough for Jane and Joe Importer. Imagine the forehead slaps and rolled eyes among the lawyers at Customs. Unfortunately, rather than possibly own up to it, CBP said there was insufficient evidence linking the pen to Customs and that it would only consider the merchandise that is the subject of the ruling request.

Now I know why I have a drawer full of various CBP mouse pads, cup coolers, stress balls, and other assorted junk! [NOTE: SEE BELOW FOR MORE ON THIS STORY]

I should have updated the Colombia FTA story to reflect the Democratic move to block the vote under what everyone assumed were firm fast-track deadlines. But, I assume you have heard already. A story on that is here.

If you have time, listen to this episode of This American Life. It focuses on the fascinating story of the International Boundary Commission's fight to keep a homeowner on the U.S.-Canada border from building a wall within 10 feet of the boundary. The story takes an odd political turn and raises interesting questions about international law, policy making, and the power of the president.

UPDATE:

I went through my drawer. Guess what I found, a pen CBP gave out that has a small blind marking and is printed with the Customs and Border Protection web address in a contrasting color. Here are exhibits A and B:




Comments

Anonymous said…
Is this like what your parents used to say...do as I say and not as I do?

Thanks for providing that great bit of humor!
Apr 21, 2008, 9:45:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Hey guys!
i just started blogging not that long ago and running across this blog it seemed a bit too interesting to only read the first paragraph. Please, who ever wrote this, keep me updated!
Nov 17, 2008, 7:29:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more