File Your Report

Brokers know that they are required to file a report with Customs and Border Protection stating that they are continuing to work as a broker and their address.  That's in the customs regulations at sec. 111.30(d).  They also have to pay the applicable $100 fee.  The report is due February 1, so if you are a broker, get your ducks in a row and do your filing.

If you don't, you may be in trouble.  I know this because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently decided Schick v. United States.  Mr. Schick lost his license because of a failure to file his triennial report.  He then appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, which held that it had jurisdiction to here his appeal.  On that narrow point, the Federal Circuit reversed. According to the Court of Appeals, the revocation of a license for failing to file the report is not reviewable by the Court of International Trade because it is not an action that is specified in 28 U.S.C. sec. 1581(a)-(h).  Most specifically, this revocation is not a disciplinary proceeding under sec. 1641(d), which would be reviewable in the CIT.  

So what is Mr. Schick to do?  Well, the CAFC dangles the possibility of review by another court. But where would he go and what would he do there?  The Administrative Procedure Act says that a person aggrieved by an action of a federal agency is entitled to review of that action.  The problem is that the APA does not establish jurisdiction for a court to hear the claim.  If this claim does not belong in the CIT, it would appear to be best addressed by the district court in the port where Mr. Schick should have filed his report.

Good luck to Mr. Schick.  I'm sorry to say that even if he finds a court with jurisdiction, the facts are going to be tough to overcome without some very compelling law.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A very timely and important reminder. I believe requirement is to file status report during the month of February. Not due Feb 1 but actually due Feb 28. Since the report is file through the port which issued license, might be best to check with your local port.

JG
Jan 30, 2009, 11:35:00 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