Reservist Permitted to Take Broker's Exam


Below is part of the text of a press release from my office. I am happy about this result so far and hope that Customs and Border Protection follows up with some public statement letting all Reservists know that they may become licensed customhouse brokers without having to give up their service in the Reserve.

William A. Nusbaum, a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, was permitted to sit for the April 2, Customs Broker Licensing Examination administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which has also agreed that his status as a member of Reserve will not prevent him from receiving a broker’s license. This is a direct result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of Mr. Nusbaum in the U.S. Court of International Trade by Barnes, Richardson & Colburn. Prior to filing the suit, Mr. Nusbaum had been informed that his status as a member of the Army Reserve disqualified him from taking the test or being granted a license because he is an employee of the United States government.

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn filed the suit challenging the validity of Customs’ interpretation of its regulation and, in particular, its application to Reservists. On Friday, April 6, after Mr. Nusbaum took the test and after receiving assurances from the government that he will not be deemed ineligible for a customs broker’s license because of his service in the Reserve, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn asked the Court of International Trade to stay the case while the exams are graded and Mr. Nusbaum’s application is processed.

According to Lawrence Friedman, a partner in the Chicago office of Barnes/Richardson, “We hope that this positive result is applied generally to all Reservists. Customs should not read its regulations to prevent Reservists—many of whom are veterans—from applying their skills in logistics and compliance to private sector businesses. We hope the agency makes a public statement that the ranks of licensed customhouse brokers are open to our military Reservists.” Friedman added that “Barnes/Richardson is proud to have been able to help Mr. Nusbaum and similarly situated Reservists.”

Comments

Peter S Herrick said…
As a retired Navy veteran this is an excellent result!
Apr 10, 2012, 4:30:00 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