See You In Toronto

If any of you happen to be headed to the ie|Canada annual meeting on Monday through Wednesday, I'll be there. Please say hello. I'll be talking on U.S. penalty law and manning the Barnes/Richardson booth at the trade show where we will try hard to give away an iPod.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Crikey and Zut Alors, What is a Diary?

Image
For more than 20 years, I have had the privilege of organizing the Dominick L. DiCarlo – US Court of International Trade Lecture at the University of Illinois – Chicago Law School (FKA the John Marshall Law School). One of the great pleasures of this experience has been working with Court of International Trade judges who have graciously participated as keynote speakers. Last week, we presented the 22 nd edition during which I had the opportunity to interview the Honorable Jane A. Restani. In a discussion on the interpretation of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Judge Restani mentioned her recent decision in Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States and asked whether I would post on the decision here. I had recently exchanged emails about the case and mistakenly thought I had already posted this. To ensure that I have not misled a judge or the audience at the event, here is that post. The question presented in this case was the classification of paper notebooks that ...
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

eWriters and Protests

Image
When I saw that the Court of International Trade decision in Kent Displays  involves the classification of "a battery powered flexible eWriter device containing a pressure sensitive liquid crystal writing film," I had a moment of technology-geek excitement. That feeling stemmed from my personal conversion from yellow legal pads to a reMarkable "paper tablet." Before I wax on in an ode to the reMarkable, let's deal with this case. Kent Displays imported a product called the Dashboard, which it describes as a green replacement for paper. The device is based on a "bistable cholesteric reflective LCD."  This review is of a different product from Kent Displays, but probably gives a good idea of how the Dashboard works. Here is an image from Kent Displays of its Blackboard Smart Pen Reusable Notebook.  Kent had been importing this product under HTSUS item 9013.80.7000, which at the time of entry covered: Liquid crystal devices not constituting articles pro...
Read more