Fiji on First Sale

A quick update on Customs and Border Protection's effort to eliminate "first sale," sometimes called middleman," valuation:

Earlier in the week, 17 U.S. Senators sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff expressing "serious concern" over the move.

If this happens, the countries that feel it most will likely be developing economies with active textile sectors. Today, the Government of Fiji has acted. Fiji is concerned that changing the valuation methodology might make Fiji products more expensive in the U.S. I'm not sure whether other governments have similarly commented but one must assume that if Fiji is worried, others are as well.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is Paul Vandevert. I know it's your blog and you talk about what you want to talk about, not necessarily what others want to talk about, but I don't have a blog yet, so I'm making this post.

Did you notice the first three paragraphs of the Farm Bill's provisions on First Sale? Before you get to the Sense of Congress paragraph, Congress has decreed by law that beginning in August (90 days from enactment) (1) Customs will require importers to declare at the time of entry whether or not they are using First Sale or the last sale under Transaction Value; (2) Customs will provide monthly reports on First Sale entries to the USITC; (3) the USITC will issue a report to Congress at the end of 1 year (August 2009) on First Sale usage, including number of First Sale entries, entered values, duties paid, etc.

Is anyone thinking of how Customs will do this? Where in the current, largely electronic filing environment can an importer annotate its entry with any information? As I've thought ever since CBP issued the ICP on Transaction Value and Related Party transaction last April (2007), when and how does an importer even suggest to Customs the method of appraisement to be applied?

But, won't this have a probably unintended chilling effect on First Sale valuation, since importers will be nervous about how or even if they should declare First Sale on their imports?

or have I been smoking something again?
May 28, 2008, 12:36:00 PM
bath mate said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dec 31, 2009, 4:38:00 AM
bath mate said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dec 31, 2009, 4:56:00 AM
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