Seeing Hypocrisy

Often, I disagree with a position adopted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That is the nature of my job. Sometimes I am right, sometimes, I am wrong, and often reasonable minds may differ. What I don't do is see everything that CBP does through the lens of Washington policy makers. That is primarily a result of years of experience dealing with the agency and also my Midwestern practicality. Rarely do I see any coordinated conspiracies.

For example, there was a lot of hubbub a while back about a CBP proposal that would have effectively banned the importation of a category of pocket knives that have spring assisted opening mechanisms but have not heretofore been classified as illegal switchblades. Some people believed this to be a stealth effort by the Obama administration to slowly limit personal rights which would ultimately result in the repeal of the Second Amendment and the loss of gun rights for all Americans.

I seriously doubt that. In fact, I am willing to bet that no one outside of Customs or possible the Department of Homeland Security knew anything about that proposal before it showed up in the Federal Register. I just don't believe that anyone in the White House is paying close attention to the details CBP admissibility decisions. There is a war going on, health care to sort out, and an economy in shambles. Pocket knives seems pretty far down the Oval Office agenda.

The same goes for the current controversy over the tariff classification of solar panels equipped with electrical diodes are classifiable as generators. Apparently, similar panels have long been classified as photovoltaic cells, which are duty-free. However, earlier this year, Customs noted that solar panels with diodes are excluded from that classification when they incorporate elements to control the flow of electricity. Consequently, it ruled that such solar panels are properly classified as electrical generators and subject to a 2.5% rate of duty.

This caused the people who have been exporting solar panels to the United States and those who purchase them to cry foul. Yesterday, Scott Lincicome, a trade lawyer in Washington wrote on his blog that the classification decision is inconsistent with the Administration's efforts to support green business and encourage trade in environmentally friendly products. In a post accusing the White House of hypocrisy, he asks "Is the Obama Administration publicly pushing for free trade in "environmental goods," while quietly raising tariffs on a key "green" product to protect domestic businesses from losing market share?" He answers the question by saying that it looks that way.

I have no beef with this thesis if the "Obama Administration" is taken in its literal sense of everyone who works for the executive branch. On the other hand, I think it is extremely unlikely that anyone from "the Administration" applied any political pressure that made its way to the National Import Specialists in New York who issue routine classification decisions. If a policy decision were made to protect or encourage the U.S. production of solar panels, wouldn't the easier process be to pass a tax incentive or some other more direct incentive? More likely, this is a case of one hand not watching the other hand and probably purposefully so.

Maybe I am wrong. I just don't buy that there is actual affirmative hypocrisy at work. Rather, I think the folks at CBP are trying to do their jobs properly applying the tariff schedule without regard to larger policy questions. If that bumps up against some larger economic or environmental policy, Congress or the "Administration" will have to fix it. And that is exactly what happened with the knife issue. Congress amended to law to prevent CBP from making the change. End of controversy. If anyone feels this is a big enough issue to push, it should try and get duty suspension or some other legislative relief. Otherwise, CBP is going to move ahead, doing its job.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good comparison to the knife classification issue. The solar panel reclassification probably had nothing to do with any green/protectionist "hypocrisy" and more to do with longer term trade negotiating tensions, including the EU reclassifying newly developed IT articles into different HTS headings with higher rates, and the long term loss of any US multilateral tariff negotiating leverage vis a vis BRIC countries. Thus, CBP looks more closely at classification of technological advances under a static HTS nomenclature. A vocal US assembler is just added cover for the approach CBP is already following. Another interesting point is that the critical blogger is a former McCain advisor and Cato Institute analyst, more likely to find conspiracy in such Democratic inconsistencies than, say, a thirty-year customs lawyer who has been trying to get White Houses since Jimmy Carter to pay attention to anything that goes on at Customs other than drug interdiction.
I think I'll stay anonymous on this one!
Dec 16, 2009, 8:57:00 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