Ruling of the Week 2015.3: NAFTA CO by Power of Attorney

First, let me acknowledge what might be very obvious to you: the Court of International Trade has been pushing out customs opinions at an impressive rate this year. I am behind on cases, which prevents me from being behind on work. I will catch up.

This week's ruling (HQ H256731) answers a question that comes up all the time. The question is whether employees of an American parent company can issue NAFTA certificates of origin on behalf of a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary. Presumably, the same answer would apply to a Mexican subsidiary.

The facts here are simple and familiar. The company involved is S.C. Johnson & Sons. SCJ has a wholly-owned subsidiary in Canada that manufactures goods for export to the U.S. SCJ Canada, through its officers, acting pursuant to authority granted by the Board of Directors, has granted two employees of the Wisconsin-based parent company Powers of Attorney authorizing them to execute NAFTA Certificates of Origin on behalf of the Canadian sub. The resulting CO would show SCJ Canada as the producer and exporter. The signature block would show the title of the person signing the CO as "SCJ Global Trade Compliance as Agent for SCJ Canada," which seems like a lawyerly mouthful.

After a brief review of corporations law, Customs' ruling notes that there is no specific requirement that an agent authorized to sign a NAFTA CO to hold a formal power of attorney. In cases where the party signing the CO is an employee or officer of the exporter, his or her status as an agent of the exporter is clear. An exporter is also permitted to establish an agency relationship with someone who is not an employee or officer but who is to complete NAFTA CO's. The primary requirement is that the person executing the CO have knowledge of the relevant facts. The way to formalize and memorialize that agency relationship is with a Power of Attorney.

Consequently, SCJ employees who hold a Power of Attorney from SCJ Canada are agents for SCJ Canada and can complete NAFTA CO's on its behalf provided they have knowledge of the facts.

That's your best practice. If you are in a similar situation, make sure there is a POA in place.

But, there is still a lingering question. What if there were no POA? Would the CO be invalid? Personally, I don't think so. I think any evidence of authorization would be sufficient to show an agency relationship. In fact, there is the legal concept of "apparent authority," under which someone can be held to be an agent simply because they appeared to be acting as an agent. If someone from SCJ in Wisconsin who holds the Title "Global Trade Compliance Lead" signs a NAFTA CO on behalf of a wholly-owned SCJ sub, that sure looks a lot like an agency relationship.

I am certainly not advising that companies skip the formal POA. It is the right way to go. But, I wonder whether it truly is necessary.

Comments

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