APHIS Wins One

Sometimes, interesting court decisions come from someplace other than the Court of International Trade or Federal Circuit. In this case, it is the Second Circuit.

In Natural Resources Defense Council v. Department of Agriculture, the NRDC, California, Connecticut, and my state of Illinois sued the Department of Ag over its implementation of regulations regarding imported solid wood packing materials.

If you are event tangentially involved in international logistics, you know that wood packing materials have been identified as a vector for plant pests entering the United States. Emerald ash borers and Asian longhorn beetles have destroyed trees throughout the U.S. and in my neighborhood. Given the danger posed by these and other pests, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service decided to regulate the importation of SWPM. The issue in this case is whether APHIS properly considered the alternatives, including the possibility of a phased-in complete ban on SWPM.

The legal basis for this challenge is two fold. First, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that a federal agency prepare an environmental impact statement prior to taking any major action affecting the quality of the environment. The plaintiff's alleged that APHIS' EIS was inadequate in that it failed to give full consideration is a phased-in ban on SWPM. The second basis for the case is the Plant Protection Act, which requires Ag to facilitate trade while also working to reduce the risk f the dissemination of plant pests.

Like most administrative law cases, this one does not turn on whether APHIS' decision is correct or even the best alternative. Rather, the sole issue before the Court was whether APHIS had properly followed its mandate to consider the environment and trade. It appears the main complaint was that APHIS did not give enough thought to and discussion about the notion of a phased-in ban. The details that I am skipping over relate to the availability of substitute materials, the fact that the fumigating chemicals used on SWPM are ozone-depleting, and the relative level of development of our trading partners.

The Court held that APHIS provided sufficient consideration to the relevant factors and adequately explained them in its various Federal Register notices. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the district court and upheld the current regulatory standards.

Speaking of which, importers need to know these rules. Imports that are not compliance with the standards may result in liquidated damages, seizures, and redelivery notices. None of which is going to make you happy.

Comments

Unknown said…
This is such an interesting topic to me because I had dealt directly with this issue since I worked with a forwarder for lumber exporters and a daughter of a forester. A phyto certificate had to be presented with all export documentation, particularly with countries requiring this. Seeing that lumber is something more regulated here, it may not be the same across the globe. So phasing out the use of lumber globally for dunage or whatever shipping purpose overseas, will be a very slow process. If this is an environmental issue of globally going "green" and banning the use of wood in all shipping, then there has be some global consensus of it.

Also, I have worked with Ag on the import side, for inspections and fumigations of flowers being imported. There is no telling what kind of chemicals being used in these fumigations or even in the treatment of the lumber if we are speaking about the environmental impact. (I am not an expert in this area, so anyone can chime in).

Seeing that lumber will always be a product that is in demand, I don't know how else Ag is expected to think of this issue. Foresters here in America have to deal with domestic pests on trees, causing millions of dollars in losses to lumber companies. Why would any other country be different?
Jul 15, 2010, 12:00:00 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