Commercial Enforcement

Rumor has it that the new Commissioner is interested in turning up the heat on commercial enforcement. That could mean more requests for information, more audits (including the new Quick Response Audits), and more penalties. It's hard to say what is policy and what is happenstance. But, we have seen increased activity on these fronts.

Just to drive the point home a bit, here is a press release from Customs crowing about its enforcement of textile-related enforcement. This is a big deal area for CBP because it represents a significant portion of the total duties owed and U.S. textile producers are a significant and vocal presence on Capitol Hill (as are the retailers and apparel importers with diametrically opposed interests).

And, to further prove the point, Customs is announcing the creation of an Office of Trade to consolidate trade-related operations in a single office. The new office, to come into being October 15, will include functions currently held by Field Operations, Strategic Trade, and Regulations and Rulings.

Maybe Customs is thinking of tightening a noose of its own.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry this has got to be great news for the "compliance" trade community. From lawyers to brokers and compliance professionals (myself included), this should be a boon.

In my opinion, CBP has been too much focused on "security" and trade compliance has been extremely at the back seat. I don't intend to wake up a sleeping giant by the comments above, but I do feel CBP should start focusing more on trade compliance. This is more in line with Hamilton's vision for the Customs Service than "security."

Nice write up...When are you going to address one on Security? Or do you not have enough space on the blog to cover this subject?
Sep 14, 2006, 7:42:00 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

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