What Do You Want From Me?

Right now, I am having editorial issues. Frankly, I have a bunch of blog-worthy material piled up. I need some time to sort through it and decide what to address. Or, in the alternative, I might do a series of very quick summaries and send you on your way with a link. It depends, I guess, on how I feel.

For one thing, keep in mind that the web site of my law firm, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, covers a lot of this in a more timely manner. I encourage you who visit here, to make a habit of visiting there regularly. So, I will leave it to the crack web master at BR&C to cover the news that Customs has extended the deadline for filing a C-TPAT supply chain security profile to October 1.

Another interesting thing happening is a renewed focus on intellectual property enforcement at the border. Customs made an announcement that it is working to support the US-EU Action Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. At about the same time, the new USTR announced a new focus on the protection of US intellectual property rights in foreign markets.

Guatemala is now functioning as a CAFTA-DR country. On June 28, the government of Peru approved the Trade Promotion Agreement with the US.

Judge Carman has likely given heartburn to every customhouse broker in the U.S. Judge Ridgeway has given something similar to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Musgrave has given us all renewed hope that maybe someday CBP will mitigate the interest in a prior disclosure case. And Ford? Well, Ford is not having a good run of luck at the moment. Oh, and nice effort trying to get the Court of Federal Claims to refund antidumping duties.

My goal is to cover these court cases in greater detail. I'll see what I can do.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry: Just fell upon your blog. I like it a lot. Yes, Judge Goldberg dished up another serving of our usual losses in court, but this week we seemed to have turned a corner. Judge Duggan in the ED Michigan dismissed an APTA forfeiture case and Ford filed suit under FOIA against Customs over their refusal to disclose our compliance record. At least this week has been some fun. And, btw, we've moved for reconsideration with Judge Goldberg. Paul Vandevert
Jul 27, 2006, 7:28:00 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

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 topic. So, let's
Read more

Precious Tritium

Image
One thing I have learned as a customs lawyer who does a lot of classification work is that there are millions of odd items moving in international trade the existence of which I am completely ignorant. Such is the case of the gaseous tritium light sources used in, among other things, firearm sights. These things use tritium sealed in a glass that has been coated in phosphor. The radioactive tritium decays, releasing beta particles, which interact with the phosphor causing it to emit light. In other words, it creates light with no external power source. Pretty cool.  Tritium is, of course, a real thing. It is an isotope of hydrogen. We know this from the excellent documentary "Spider-Man." This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. United States  in which the importer challenged the tariff classification of several versions of the gaseous tritium light sources ("GTLS"). The plaintiff uses them to make gun sights. The
Read more