Possible Amendments to Lacey Act

The Lacey Act is apparently the current poster-child for the excessive regulation of business. I know that because ON February 2, Senator Rand Paul has proposed FOCUS, the Freedom from Over Criminalization and Unjust Seizure Act. Under the bill, the criminal sanctions in the Lacey Act would be replaced with civil penalties. The bill also excises any reference to "foreign law" from the Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act is intended to prevent U.S. importers from benefiting from trade in plant and animal products that were illegally obtained. In other words, someone in the U.S. should not be in a position to benefit from elephant poaching in Kenya. But, it is only "poaching" when defined as such in Kenya, which is foreign law. 

According to a web site for Senator Paul's campaign, "The Lacey Act as currently codified is overly broad, imprecise, vague, and subject to abuse by overzealous prosecutors and activist judges." Oddly enough, I think it is a compliance mess that is extremely difficult to manage. That said, I think the notion that we cannot recognize foreign laws in situations like this is silly. It is not exactly the same thing, but if this is successful, I bet there will be efforts to loosen restrictions on conflict minerals, blood diamonds, and similarly regulated products. Again, I understand that compliance with these rules if difficult and that enforcement needs to be based on common sense and reasonable business possibilities. But, there is a baby and the bathwater problem here as well.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Isn't the "foreign law" lanaguage analagous to what we do within the FCPA?
Mar 21, 2012, 10:29:00 AM
Online Law Degrees said…
It's tough to discern between whether there is further work to be done, or if this is simply political grand standing by Senator Paul.

~Sarah
Mar 30, 2012, 6:10:00 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