Who is Unfailingly Complicit?

A while back, an anonymous reader posted a comment to my post about the case in which Customs and Border Protection summarily denied a protest relating to the detention of merchandise in an origin case. The original post is here.

The issue I raised came down to whether Customs and we should assume that importers who end up presenting fraudulent origin documents to CBP are victims or accomplices. Obviously, there will be cases in which either one will be correct. But overall? What do you think?

The commenter said this:

The importer is almost unfailingly complicit when these types of dual documents are used. And these companies have no reservations in challenging adverse determinations against their false documents because the government does not have the resources to verify overseas production (ICE did not and will not take this kind of case, leaving CBP to its own devices). Attempts at informed compliance in these instances do not lead to future compliance as you suggest; it acknowledges Customs' inability to successfully prosecute violators, notifies them of possible investigative action, and emboldens them to open shell companies to import with or otherwise brazenly continue defrauding the government. Hiding behind the facilitation of legitimate trade and complaining that Customs is playing "gotcha" is always a nice route to take when you know the government can't prove your culpability.

My experience just does not line up with that. Companies, at least the ones that I have had the pleasure of dealing with, do not want to waste the considerable and time and effort it takes to fight with CBP. Keep in mind that, for the most part, the presumptions favor Customs and the importer needs to prove the origin of the merchandise. Customs, and the lawyers at Justice, can go a long way simply by raising questions as to origin. Plus, despite what the commenter suggests, my experience is that CBP will be more than happy to pursue a case at least as it relates to marking penalties, liquidated damages, or 1592 penalties. I agree that getting an Assistant U.S. Attorney interested enough to pursue a forfeiture case is another story, but I have been there as well (although in the copyright context).

I certainly respect the commenter's opinions and I would really like to know if that person is in CBP. Individual opinions are formed by experience. My experience differs; so, therefore, do my opinions. I genuinely believe that if CBP helped importers identify fraudulent documents, compliance would improve. Maybe, to provide a level of comfort to CBP, that information could be shared only with ISA members or some other select group and subject to some sort of non-disclosure agreements. I know people might call that naive, but I say, "So?" Trust can be a valuable commodity in business and in government. Working to build trust can earn dividends for both sides.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I enjoy the presumption that I must work with Customs if I believe those who pass the government false documents knowingly do so. You must be correct in saying our experiences are different. I also work in the legal field and routinely encounter businesses who desparately seek access to the American market. The scarce resources of the government and rarity of civil penalties results in road like conditions; sure there are posted speed limits, but how many actually obey them? We find ways to avoid the laws we don't find convenient when the penalties are few (in the case of Customs) or trivial (not so much with Customs). You must represent the good guys.
Nov 6, 2008, 6:58:00 PM
Anonymous said…
The presumption that companies are generally complicit starts with the unrealistic premise that most importers are sophisticated enough to make the rational decisions the commenter assume.

In my experience, importers don't know they are unlikely to be caught, don't know that ICE or CBP will not check up on them, and don't really ever seem to operate on the sort of risk-based approach that Customs does. They don't have enough facts to make those decisions.

That is not to say that I necessarily disagree with 11/06 anonymous. I don't, but I do think that the sort of legal avoidance s/he is talking about is different from a scheme to knowingly defraud the United States.
Nov 7, 2008, 12:36:00 PM
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