Filler

I have a bunch of substance to post. I have a couple comments on the UPS and Pomeroy decisions from the CIT and need to talk about the Optrex decision in some detail.

But, I can't do it now.

In the meantime, I give you these two items.

First: Scooting Across the Border. Read that article. I'll wait because I have a question.

Done?

OK. Here's my question: Who decided that motorcycles and scooters get to cut ahead in traffic just because they can fit between two lanes of cars? I ask this because this very morning I rode my bike to work. While waiting to make a left turn at a light (off Western to Pratt), I waited behind a car with another car behind me. In other words, I acted like I was a car. While sitting there waiting for the arrow, a guy on a blue Schwinn with a basket on the handlebar and a chain guard sped past us and positioned himself at the front of the otherwise orderly line. Am I supposed to do that? I admit to occasionally hopping on the sidewalk to avoid a snarl, but that seems different.

In the case of scooters at the border, I am surprised these guys don't occasionally run into a car driver who is not happy about being pushed back in line by scooters.

Second: Check out this vintage article from the New York Times. It is an 1898 article summarizing a bunch of then-recent customs decisions. A sidebar covers the issue of the classification of a mummy for museum display. It's hard to imagine customs decisions getting that much attention today.

Comments

Anonymous said…
So you're talking about two different sets of rules for vehicle traffic. In Mexico (or at least the parts I've visited, mostly in the south), it's anything goes. Motorcycles and bikes squeeze in wherever they can and frequently motorcyclists run red lights. So there was no decision about motorcycles and scooters getting to go in front; it's just that the cops don't enforce the laws (if laws against the practice are even on the books).

As for the US, you are right, act like a car as much as possible. In the case of making a left turn, I would do what you did. It makes it easier for drivers to avoid hitting cyclists if they can anticipate what you're going to do. Cyclists not following the rules of the road make life difficult for everybody.
Jun 20, 2008, 10:15:00 AM
Anonymous said…
I mostly agree with Matt, with the caveat that in any fight between my Trek 5000 and a 1-2 ton vehicle with 4 or more wheels, I can safely assume that I will lose. Thus, I seek to minimize the risk of making such contact, and am not above moving ahead of stationary cars and even through red lights (after stopping to look), if it puts distance between me and the 4 wheelers. That's a rare situation, and not one I recommend as a general rule, but I am a lifelong scofflaw in that respect. It all depends on how well I know the route. The border line sounds a little different -- someone in line in a car is eventually going to come to blows with the scooter renters.
Jun 24, 2008, 3:02:00 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