Monday, June 27, 2016

Ruling of the Week 2016.15: Customs Business

One of my least favorite areas of customs regulation has to do with the ability of related companies to provide compliance expertise through shared services. The problem arises because while a company can rely on its employees to conduct customs business on its own behalf, no one but a licensed customs broker can engage in customs business on behalf of a third party. That means that if you are an employee of Subsidiary Alpha of Acme Holdings Corp. you can't fully assist your sister company Subsidiary Beta with its customs compliance. That is true even though you may be the most qualified person in the entirely to the Acme Holdings extended family. While there is a space called "corporate compliance" in which the shared services model works just fine, managing the line of acceptable advice is difficult.

The reason for this is 19 USC § 641(b)(1), which requires a valid customs broker's license to undertake customs business on behalf of a third party. Customs business is defined as:


those activities involving transactions with CBP concerning the entry and admissibility of merchandise, its classification and valuation, the payment of duties, taxes, or other charges assessed or collected by CBP on merchandise by reason of its importation, and the refund, rebate, or drawback of those duties, taxes, or other charges. “Customs business” also includes the preparation, and activities relating to the preparation, of documents intended to be filed with CBP in furtherance of any other customs business activity, whether or not signed or field by the preparer. . .

19 CFR § 111.1.

This is relevant at the moment because of HQ H261011 (Jun. 3, 2016) in which the question presented to Customs was whether the use of a single bank account to pay duties on behalf of two related but separately incorporated subsidiaries constitutes customs business. Each entity would have a separate ACH account to sweep payments to Customs, but the funds would come from a consolidated account. Clearly, the banking arrangement involves transactions concerning the payment of duties, taxes, or other charges assessed by CBP. That makes this a non-frivolous question, even though it should be entirely obvious that the account from which the funds are drawn is not indicative of the practice of "customs business."

In prior rulings, CBP has held that a company cannot make payments to CBP on behalf of a sibling company without running afoul of the broker licensing requirement. According to Customs, the arrangement proposed in this case is different because each entity is continuing to pay its own funds on its own behalf. The proposal is internal to the company and not visible to Customs. Further, the subsequent accounting reconciliation between the companies is not a transaction with Customs and does not constitute customs business.

That is a good result and a valuable step. Customs should go further. I realize this may be contrary to the interests of some brokers out there, but keep in mind that it is also contrary to the interests of outside legal counsel. In-house corporate compliance is a reality. Customs' primary interest should be in ensuring that importers have access to the best available compliance resources. Companies may choose to increase those resources if they can be shared among related entities. Today, sharing customs business resources involves fairly complicated steps including employee sharing agreements, employee time management to avoid overlapping times of responsibility, creating licensed brokerage entities, and other schemes.

The problem is that Customs can't do anything about this on its own. The statute is there and Customs must apply it. It is easy enough to say something like "call your congressperson" as a means of encouraging a fix. But, politics being what it is these days, you may as well stand in your cul-de-sac and shout into a storm. Nevertheless, when the political storm clears, this is something that requires congressional attention in a way that continues to support the brokerage community.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Ruling of the Week 2016.14: Something Fishy

Did you ever see a marlin or other game fish proudly displayed as a mounted trophy and wonder exactly how one goes from landing the fish to hanging it over the mantel? I have always assumed that some portion of that trophy is the actual fish that was murdered caught through the skill and patience of the angler. I pictured a taxidermy shop where meat and entrails were scooped out and skin carefully laid over some sort of interior structure. This was, in my mind at least, a gruesome art form.

It turns out that in at least one case, modern anglers do not rely on the real fish at all for their mounted trophies. Apparently, a mounted fish trophy can now be made based entirely on the recollection of the one that got away (or was released). Don't get me wrong, in an era of over fishing and increasing sensitivity to the needless destruction of animal life, this makes perfect sense. Why kill the fish when you can have a replica made and mounted?

For our purposes, the question is whether the plastic "fish blank" that is painted to become the "release mount" is classifiable as an article of plastic in Heading 3926 or in Heading 9705 as a collector's piece of zoological interest. This was tackled (see that?) in HQ H188945 (May 9, 2016).

Any guesses?

The importer claimed that the plastic fish mounts are used "in the taxidermy industry" to make replicas of game fish and are akin to taxidermied fish mounts in construction, purpose, and channels of trade.



Customs had previously classified fish mounts in 9705. See HQ 952687 (Apr. 30, 1993). In that case, the mount was used as a base to which actual fish parts were attached. Specifically, the skin, teeth, fins, and tail of a once live fish were attached to the plastic mount. Here, the process completely dispenses with the organic fish parts.

Rather than be zoological specimens, according to Customs, these are mass produced from molds made of fish that have been caught, molded, and released. Further, these are decorative items, not likely to be used in, say, museums for scientific or educational reasons. Consequently, Customs classified the plastic fish release mounts in 3926.40.00 as "Other articles of plastic . . . statuettes and other ornamental articles."

Of course, this also dispenses with potentially troublesome compliance issues such as the Convention on Traffic in Endangered Species and APHIS clearance. It also means I can get a mounting of a purely fictional fish like the shark from Jaws or Dory.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Ruling of the Week 2016.13: Kimera Koffee

If you have been around here long enough, you know I am a skeptical guy. I believe the consensus of medical science is in a better position than the guy at the supplement store to give medical advice. I also believe that eating or drinking something with the intention of modifying the way your body works is a medical decision whether you are taking a prescription drug or a "natural" supplement. I suspect the prescription drug has a better chance of actually working as advertised than does the supplement, but both are drugs.

With that in mind, I read HQ H268556 (Dec. 15, 2015), which considers the tariff classification of Kimera Koffee. This particular product is about 95% coffee, but it has been "boosted" with taurine, alpha GPC 50%, L-theanine, and DMAE (Deanol). As  result, the coffee is advertised as enhancing cognitive performance, boosting energy levels, improving focus and concentration, and enhancing athletic performance.

The additives are a class of products known a nootropics, also called "smart drugs." Here is a good overview of the science of nootropics from Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella. The article does not address the specific additives in Kimera Koffee, but the conclusion is interesting. Stimulants provide a subjective experience of enhanced performance. That makes me think that the caffeine in the coffee might be the nootropic we all already know and love. Personally, I like my nootropic in the form of a cappuccino from Intelligentsia in Chicago.

I'm not saying that the additives in this product don't work. I don't know that, and I suspect they do provide an additional jolt. But, there are a couple legal issues raised.

First, what about the tariff classification? In the ruling, Customs had to decide whether this is coffee of HTSUS Heading 0901 or preparations of coffee in Heading 2101. According to prior rulings, a preparation of coffee includes coffee with sugar, milk, etc. regardless of changes in the finished products' physical characteristics. But, coffee mixed with natural or artificial flavors has been classified as coffee, rather than as a preparation.

Although the added supplements are not flavorings, Customs believes the analysis is similar. This did not get a lot of analysis, and I think it is legally dubious. But, there it is. Customs classified this product as coffee in subheading 0901.21. As a side note, coffee of 0901.21 is exempt from country of origin marking.

The second question I have is whether this should be regulated as a drug. Assuming it falls into the category of supplements rather than drugs, it should be labeled to say that the statements about performance enhancement have not been evaluated by the FDA and that this coffee is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. That is the magic get-out-of-FDA-jail-free card for supplement sellers. Section 201(g) of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act defines a drug as, in part, "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals." By its own advertising, this coffee is designed to affect the function of the human brain. By my reading, that is a drug. Of course, I can also get a cup of coffee with my apple pie, making it food. That is enough to take it out of the scope of the Act. Is that the right analysis though? It seems that by adding those ingredients to coffee for the purpose of affecting brain function, the coffee is being used as a delivery system rather than food. If I put insulin in chocolate pudding, is it no longer regulated as a drug?

Lucky for me, this is the Customs Law Blog and I don't need to know the answer to these questions. If you, on the other hand, are a F&D lawyer, please let me know how this plays out for Kimera Koffee and similar "boosted" products.