tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post3597979031245314344..comments2024-03-20T00:33:13.961-05:00Comments on Customs Law: The DR-CAFTA BindLarryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-53812083260011241372010-08-17T21:04:56.181-05:002010-08-17T21:04:56.181-05:00The other practical distinction for NAFTA is that ...The other practical distinction for NAFTA is that Mexico and Canada are close. Sending a verification team to Juarez or Mississauga is easy. Sending a team to Rabat or Wooloomooloo is a lot harder.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-75185729635835981012010-08-17T20:42:31.751-05:002010-08-17T20:42:31.751-05:00Three things: (a) I guess I do tend to "think...Three things: (a) I guess I do tend to "think out loud." That is a very nice way to say "never shuts up." Thanks.<br /><br />(b) This whole issue could be resolved if importers were only responsible for the "truthiness" of the certification. That would make the whole process easier.<br /><br />(c) Finally, I don't like to admit it, but I get why they don't want to apply NAFTA verification to other countries. Discussing sovereignty issues inherent in Customs verifying in-country with Canada is one thing. The same discussion with Morocco, Chile, Singapore, the Dominican Republic etc. etc. starts to look a little burdensome. <br /><br />I would like to have seen them take a novel approach that I think is win/win. If you reasonably relied on the supplier but the claim turns out to be in error, you ought to lose the benefit going forward, without owing back duties and interest. That would be fundamentally fair.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03957203396555442465noreply@blogger.com