Starting to Catch Up

I have not been able to devote much time to detailed analysis lately. I hope those of you able to access it have been keeping up with developments via www.twitter.com/customslawblog.

For what it's worth, I'll start the process of catching up here.

On September 2, the President published a notice of changes to the NAFTA Rules of Origin and to the U.S. Israel FTA. That proclamation is here.

The Lacey Act, you will recall, requires importers of wood and plant materials to make a declaration stating the genus and species of the plant material and that it was harvested and exported legally. There are certain exceptions including for common cultivars.

APHIS has amended its schedule for the implementation of the Lacey Act. Under the change, the merchandise covered by Phase III (due to commend October 1, 2009) has been reduced. Phase IV (April 1, 2010) has been substantially revised. An important change is that recycled and reused materials (for example, particleboard and fiber board) is subject to a further enforcement delay of no earlier than September 1, 2010.

APHIS also addressed some concerns that complying with the reporting requirements will result in useless information being provided to the Government and excessive work being done by the importer. This is particularly true for products that may contain a variety of plant materials. For example, SPF is a common type of lumber made from spruce, pine, or fir. In cases where the species is unknown, the law requires a list of all species that may be present in the product. In those circumstances, APHIS appears willing to accept the genus name and the abbreviation "spp." Keep in mind that this can only be done when it is true that any or all species of the genus might be present. APHIS also continues to explore blanket certificates and is running a pilot program to test its feasibility.


I covered this case previously. It involves the classification of almond brittle from China. In a motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff asked the Court of International Trade to consider determining that the product is classifiable in a different, not previously considered, tariff provision.

The motion for reconsideration is an interesting process because it is almost never successful. Reconsideration is appropriate in very limited circumstances including:
  • An error or irregularity;
  • Serious evidentiary flaw;
  • New evidence which even a diligent party could not have discovered in time; or
  • An accident, unpredictable surprise, or unavoidable mistake which impaired a party's ability to adequately present its case
In the absence of one of those factors, the Court denied the request for rehearing and reaffirmed the classification in HTSUS item 2008.19.40.

OK, I know there is not much meat there. I've got other cases to read an blog. I'll do that soon.

Comments

Trade-Compliance.org said…
Thanks for the update esp. re: APHIS! Your twitter posts are also really useful too. I agree, it's hard to find time for both...
Sep 9, 2009, 4:26:00 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