CPSC Activity and Big Bugs

Here are some things I need to get off my desk before they are too old to be of use to you.

On June 29, the CPSC published a Federal Register Notice proposing a rule to implement the requirements for consumer registration of durable infant or toddler products. Typically, I do not think of CPSC issues as "customs law," but Customs and Border Protection will be involved in enforcement relating to imports, so we all need to have our eyes open for these issues.

Some of the requirements include:

  • Postage paid consumer registration cards in each product and internet registration option
  • Manufacturer database of registered consumers and their products
  • Manufacturer name and contact info permanently on the product in English, legibly, and conspicuous (sound familiar?)
  • Tracking labels to show manufacturer or private labeler, location and date of production, manufacturing lot
Comments are due September 14, 2009

Also on the CPSC front, the Commission voted for a two-year stay of enforcement of the lead content standards for bicycles and bike parts. I've been following this closely because I have an interest in the industry. From what I can tell, the problem is that there is lead in bikes. The highest concentration appears to be in valve stems. I'm pretty dubious that normal use, even by kids, will result in lead contamination. I have never seen a kid lick the handlebars or try and inflate the tires by mouth. I guess it could happen. The problem for the CPSC is that the statute mandates that the requirement apply. It will be interesting to see whether the industry adopts manufacturing changes or gets Congress to change the law. I'm sure they are talking to the all-terrain vehicle people.

Also, Customs seized gigantic beetles. You know I can't resist a Customs and Border Protection animal story.



Comments

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