Colombia, El Salvador & NAFTA, In One Post

See what happens when I get busy? I get behind on interesting things. Here are three:

U.S. Moves to Protect Colombian Cultural Property

Museum lawyers, take note: Customs issued a Federal Register notice adding certain Colombian pre-colombian and ecclesiastical period (1530-1830) artifacts to the list of property protected under the UNESCO Convension on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Under the convention, Colombia claims "patrimony" of these artifacts as part of its cultural heritage and unauthorized traffic in these products will be prohibited.

Retroactive CAFTA-DR Textiles Claims

Under the CAFTA-DR, duty preferences are retroactively applicable for certain textile products entered on or after January 1, 2004 when the Office of the USTR makes a determination that the goods are eligible. USTR has done that for El Salvador and Customs published a Federal Register notice saying that claims need to be in by December 31, 2006.

So NAFTA is really odd!

Folks who work closely with NAFTA has always known that there is a quirk in the marking rules. Under the so-called NAFTA Preference Override, it appears that a good might end up having "US" as the country of origin properly stamped on its side (forgetting discussions of FTC issues) while being subject to duty as if it were from Mexico or Canada. Turns out that is, in fact, correct. In this Bulletin (scroll to page 75), Customs is proposing to modify a ruling to reflect that realization. To cut to the chase, Customs says the following:

In NY G86772, based on 19 CFR 102.19(b)(2), CBP ruled that the plastic
space bags were required to be marked to indicate that their country of origin
was Mexico. In reviewing 19 CFR 102.19(b)(2), we now believe that CBP misapplied
the regulation in NY G86772. The plain language of 19 CFR 102.19(b)(2)
indicates that the so-called ‘‘NAFTA Preference Override’’ applies only to
country origin determinations for customs duty purposes, and it does not apply
to determinations of the country of origin for the marking of imported
merchandise under the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR Part
134.

Comments

bathmate said…
http://www.bathmateus.com

I love it !

I like it !

I feel it !

Best site !
ion
Dec 19, 2009, 8:56:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more