Simon Says, Wait for a Release

Customs just announced beefed up penalties for taking your merchandise before it is officially released. That sounds like a crazy thing, but it happens. Usually, this is the fault of the carrier or broker trying to look like a hero by getting the goods to you. After all, it is not often that the importer actually shows up at the port to pick up the goods.

The penalties are pretty substantial. Here is the gist of it (which are published in the guise of "mitigation guidelines"):


A first violation may be mitigated upon payment of an amount
equal to the lesser of: 1) 75% of the domestic value of the merchandise,
removed or delivered without authorization and/or examination,
or 2) a flat sum between $10,000 and $25,000, as determined at
CBP’s sole discretion.

A second violation may be mitigated upon payment of an amount
equal to the lesser of: 1) 75% of the domestic value of the merchandise,
removed or delivered without authorization and/or examination,
or 2) a flat sum between $25,001 and $50,000, as determined at
CBP’s sole discretion.

Third and subsequent violations may be mitigated upon payment
of an amount equal to the lesser of: 1) 75% of the domestic value of
the merchandise, removed or delivered without authorization and/or
examination, or 2) a flat sum between $50,001 and $75,000, as determined
at CBP’s sole discretion.

The lesson here? Customs takes this seriously. There must have been some issues at the ports that prompted this change. So, be sure that any pressure you place on your carrier, broker, or other agent at the port is coupled with an instruction the be sure the merchandise is properly released.

The other lesson here? It pays to keep your eye on the Customs Bulletin. Thanks, Rick, for pointing it out.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry keep it up. I haven't posted a comment in a while, but I do keep up with the blog. Thank You!!

rp
Dec 6, 2006, 1:51:00 PM
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