Does CBP Have A PR Problem?


Dateline Mar. 30, 2008, Chicago
Today, the above cartoon by Dan Piraro appeared in Parade Magazine, which is shoved into the Chicago Tribune in the company of the Best Buy and Circuit City ad supplements. For reasons that escape me and likely make Parade execs very happy, I always leaf through it but rarely read anything in it. I suspect it has much to do with my personal love-hate for Marilyn Vos Savant. As an aside, her explication of the three-door-game-show problem is worthy of reading although not to the standard of The Straight Dope on jets on treadmills.

So, what does this cartoon say about the public perception of Customs & Border Protection? Is the agency perceived as corrupt? Or, is it merely considered annoying and this shows that in the extreme? Note how everything from the luggage is set out neatly. Is the inspector and obsessive-compulsive bureaucrat? Plus, he's armed. Is there an implied threat here?

What about the art itself? Note the very high-quality rendering of the old seal of the Customs Service. By avoiding the current seal, has the artist intentionally implied that this episode took place prior to 2003 or is it an intentional anachronism? If so, why? Perhaps to avoid spreading malicious lies about today's hard working Customs professionals.

These are important questions. Without these very important questions, I would just be posting a cartoon from the paper, like the annoying Ziggy or Family Circus that shows up on the bulletin board or refrigerator without warning. I'm not doing that. I am using the cartoon as a vehicle for social commentary, criticism, scholarship, and news reporting. That seems like a fair use and I'm sure my friends who are copyright lawyers will agree.

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