Oh Canada! Land of AMPS


Yesterday, I spoke at a CBA event. Normally, when I go to the CBA, I am visiting the Chicago Bar Association. This event, however, was in Ottawa and it was the Canadian Bar Association. The program was on Best Practices Before the CITT (the Canadian International Trade Tribunal).


I spoke on two panels: Export Controls and Penalties. The export piece was fun because I was there to give a very short presentation essentially laying out the U.S. governmental parties involved in export controls. I sounded like something from the Jumbles: BIS at DOC, DDTC at State, OFAC at Treasury. Make sure you confirm the ECCN from the CCL and determine whether your product might be on the USML. You'll need a Schedule B for the SED although you can file electronically under AES. Don't mess up or you could get a call from BIS, CBP, ICE, or the FBI. On a substantive level, I was impressed by the level to which Canada has worked cooperatively with the U.S. to coordinate its export controls to prevent Canada from becoming a platform for re-exports.


In the penalties panel, I ran through the concept of reasonable care; the penalties for negligence, gross negligence, and fraud; and prior disclosure. The interesting thing in this session is how very different the Canadian Administrative Monetary Penalties system is from the U.S. law. Canada has built a laundry list of specific violations, called "contraventions" in Canadian. Each contravention is assigned a penalty amount. Some penalties are staged for first, second, and subsequent offenses. Others are "zero rated," which amounts to a warning.

A Canadian official who spoke on the matter said pretty firmly that Canada considers its AMPS program to be based on absolute liability. In other words, it does not matter how hard the importer tried to get it right, a contravention results in liability. The grounds for appeal seem to be very limited and mitigation is not often granted. On the other hand, the penalties cap out at $25,000 Canadian.

In the U.S., the a violation occurs whenever an importer provides incorrect material information in relation to the entry of merchandise through the failure to exercise reasonable care. That means that an importer can always assert the defense of "Look, I tried as hard as anyone to get it right. Mistakes happen." Word on the street is that Customs and Border Protection has cancelled penalty cases where the importer showed a valiant effort at compliance. Personally, I haven't seen that.

I've written about this before, but it bears repeating: Evidence of reasonable care includes:
  • Documented policies and procedures for compliance
  • Responsible individuals have training
  • Responsible individual have access to relevant materials such at the Customs Regulations, HTSUS, and Customs Bulletin
  • Seeking Customs rulings
  • Reliance on outside experts such as me, my firm, or some riskier lawyer, accountant, or broker

The question came up from the audience, which system is worse for the importer? Tough call. Absolute liability really does not give importers much opportunity to avoid the imposition of a penalty. Both systems have a means of correcting entries where the importer discovers the violation before CBP or the Customs and Border Services Agency. U.S. penalties routinely get a lot bigger than $25,000. Over all, I have to say that for big companies, the lower liability of the Canadian system might look appealing. From the perspective of a lawyer who needs something to argue about, I like the malleability of "reasonable care."

Either way, I know that I like Ottawa. I've been up there a few times and have always found it a pleasant city to visit. The pictures are of Parliament House and the nearby canal and locks. My only complaint: clearing U.S. Customs in Ottawa was painfully slow given the relatively low number of people being processed.

Comments

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