Knife Fight

UPDATED AT BOTTOM

I have been avoiding this issue because I did not think many people would actually care. But, in terms of the popular press (AKA the MSM), it seems to be the customs-related story of the moment.

Knife lovers beware, Customs and Border Protection wants to treat certain pocket knives that open via a spring or other assisted release mechanism as switchblades. That change would effectively ban their importation, although owning or selling them in the U.S. would continue to be legal.

These knives differ from actual switchblades. In a switchblade, there is an external button or slide that releases the blade. Release-assisted knives require the user to press on the blade itself, which is then released.

Customs first proposed the change in the May 22, Bulletin (see page 5). All of this is based on the Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-45. For you customs geeks out there, the implementing regs are at 19 C.F.R. § 12.95-12.103.

The amount of interest in this has surprised me. That is especially true given that owning or selling the knives in the U.S. will not be affected. But, there seems to be great interest. Here is an editorial from the paper in Anchorage. This article by Bob Barr paints CBP's proposal as an Obama Administration step taken in lieu of its "stymied" gun control agenda. I seriously doubt that this issue reached the Oval Office, but then I don't believe in the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union either.

The comment period has already run, so now interested parties are waiting for a response.

UPDATE: You can tell Customs has struck a nerve. Visit here to buy your customs "Knife Rights" products complete with the message "STOP U.S. Customs' Pocket Knife Grab!" Obviously, the knife lobby has not read Customs style guidance against the possessive apostrophe. I so want the travel mug.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry I imagine you saw this in the World Interactive Update and other sources but...

http://www.strtrade.com/wti/wti.asp?pub=0&story=31475&date=7%2F14%2F2009&company=

Regards
Linda
Jul 13, 2009, 6:58:00 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