Filler

I have a bunch of substance to post. I have a couple comments on the UPS and Pomeroy decisions from the CIT and need to talk about the Optrex decision in some detail.

But, I can't do it now.

In the meantime, I give you these two items.

First: Scooting Across the Border. Read that article. I'll wait because I have a question.

Done?

OK. Here's my question: Who decided that motorcycles and scooters get to cut ahead in traffic just because they can fit between two lanes of cars? I ask this because this very morning I rode my bike to work. While waiting to make a left turn at a light (off Western to Pratt), I waited behind a car with another car behind me. In other words, I acted like I was a car. While sitting there waiting for the arrow, a guy on a blue Schwinn with a basket on the handlebar and a chain guard sped past us and positioned himself at the front of the otherwise orderly line. Am I supposed to do that? I admit to occasionally hopping on the sidewalk to avoid a snarl, but that seems different.

In the case of scooters at the border, I am surprised these guys don't occasionally run into a car driver who is not happy about being pushed back in line by scooters.

Second: Check out this vintage article from the New York Times. It is an 1898 article summarizing a bunch of then-recent customs decisions. A sidebar covers the issue of the classification of a mummy for museum display. It's hard to imagine customs decisions getting that much attention today.

Comments

Anonymous said…
So you're talking about two different sets of rules for vehicle traffic. In Mexico (or at least the parts I've visited, mostly in the south), it's anything goes. Motorcycles and bikes squeeze in wherever they can and frequently motorcyclists run red lights. So there was no decision about motorcycles and scooters getting to go in front; it's just that the cops don't enforce the laws (if laws against the practice are even on the books).

As for the US, you are right, act like a car as much as possible. In the case of making a left turn, I would do what you did. It makes it easier for drivers to avoid hitting cyclists if they can anticipate what you're going to do. Cyclists not following the rules of the road make life difficult for everybody.
Jun 20, 2008, 10:15:00 AM
Anonymous said…
I mostly agree with Matt, with the caveat that in any fight between my Trek 5000 and a 1-2 ton vehicle with 4 or more wheels, I can safely assume that I will lose. Thus, I seek to minimize the risk of making such contact, and am not above moving ahead of stationary cars and even through red lights (after stopping to look), if it puts distance between me and the 4 wheelers. That's a rare situation, and not one I recommend as a general rule, but I am a lifelong scofflaw in that respect. It all depends on how well I know the route. The border line sounds a little different -- someone in line in a car is eventually going to come to blows with the scooter renters.
Jun 24, 2008, 3:02:00 PM
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

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 topic. So, let's
Read more

Precious Tritium

Image
One thing I have learned as a customs lawyer who does a lot of classification work is that there are millions of odd items moving in international trade the existence of which I am completely ignorant. Such is the case of the gaseous tritium light sources used in, among other things, firearm sights. These things use tritium sealed in a glass that has been coated in phosphor. The radioactive tritium decays, releasing beta particles, which interact with the phosphor causing it to emit light. In other words, it creates light with no external power source. Pretty cool.  Tritium is, of course, a real thing. It is an isotope of hydrogen. We know this from the excellent documentary "Spider-Man." This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. United States  in which the importer challenged the tariff classification of several versions of the gaseous tritium light sources ("GTLS"). The plaintiff uses them to make gun sights. The
Read more