First Sale, the Farm Bill, and Bad Parenting

This is for Paul, who by posting a comment here, prompted me out of my blog stupor. I was planning a satirical rant about how I have this awful day job that gets in they way of my blogging. I was going to explain my goal to emulate now-professional bloggers like Heather Armstrong (AKA Dooce) or parlay my blogging success into a book deal like Jessica Hagy (of Indexed) and, more important, a shot on the Today Show.

But, I can't. I'm beat. I've had a fair amount of substantive work going on. Those of you who follow the court decisions may know that I am headed up to the CAFC. Thus, I won't comment on that. I've also just gotten out a complicated perfection of a prior disclosure and have a number of investigations going on. I am not complaining. Really. I am happy and don't have a horrible day job. I like my job. As a result, it sometimes get in the way of blogging.

In particular, for those of you who have been reading for a long time, it gets in the way of the off topic, funny posts. I have heard, as an alien once said to Woody Allen, "We liked your early, funny work." I'll try to spice things up when I can.



Which brings me to the Farm Bill.

This is a great example of what is wrong with the legislative process in DC. Here we have a Farm Bill. Technically, it is the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. The law covers a million things related to agriculture include agricultural trade. The table of contents mentions softwood lumber, although I can't quite figure out why. There is also a section on unused merchandise drawback.

But, drum roll please, the important part for us is section 15422(d), which says:

It is the sense of Congress that the Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection should not implement a change to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's interpretation (as such interpretation is in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) of the term `sold for exportation to the United States', as described in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)), for purposes of applying the transaction value of the imported merchandise in a series of sales, before January 1, 2011.

That, my friends, is Customs and Border Protection getting a time out from Congress. It is Congress saying, "put that first sale change on hold until we have a chance to look into it. Oh, and when that happens, there will be a new administration, a new congress, and likely a new Commissioner."

To facilitate this review, Congress also mandated that Customs start collecting data on the use of first sale valuation and report that data to the International Trade Commission for appropriate number crunching. Unfortunately, the initial reporting will fall on importers. As Paul points out, it is not entirely clear how that information will be transmitted to CBP for collection. One assumes it will happen through something simple like a Special Program Indicator.

But here's the thing: This does not exactly say "No, don't do that." Rather, it provides a "sense of Congress." That is kind of like a parent saying "I'd rather you didn't eat peanut butter from the jar." My own experience on both sides of that weak command is: that's not a "No" and "Not a no" can be as good as a yes (unless it involves romance, in which case anything resembling a no is a no).

I seriously doubt that CBP will take any action contrary to the sense of Congress. That would simply invite more direct legislative action. Also, this time out gives CBP some time to lobby Congress on the merits of its position. So, I suspect nothing will happen before 2011. After that, all bets are off.

Which leads to the last question: What are importers supposed to do now? If you currently use first sale valuation, go ahead knowing that you might lose the benefit in a couple years. If you have been thinking starting to use first sale, you should figure out what you stand to save in the next couple years and decide whether that savings is worthwhile. If you would not make back your investment in administering the program for five years, it might not be a good investment now.

Have a good weekend.

Comments

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