File Your Report

Brokers know that they are required to file a report with Customs and Border Protection stating that they are continuing to work as a broker and their address.  That's in the customs regulations at sec. 111.30(d).  They also have to pay the applicable $100 fee.  The report is due February 1, so if you are a broker, get your ducks in a row and do your filing.

If you don't, you may be in trouble.  I know this because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently decided Schick v. United States.  Mr. Schick lost his license because of a failure to file his triennial report.  He then appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, which held that it had jurisdiction to here his appeal.  On that narrow point, the Federal Circuit reversed. According to the Court of Appeals, the revocation of a license for failing to file the report is not reviewable by the Court of International Trade because it is not an action that is specified in 28 U.S.C. sec. 1581(a)-(h).  Most specifically, this revocation is not a disciplinary proceeding under sec. 1641(d), which would be reviewable in the CIT.  

So what is Mr. Schick to do?  Well, the CAFC dangles the possibility of review by another court. But where would he go and what would he do there?  The Administrative Procedure Act says that a person aggrieved by an action of a federal agency is entitled to review of that action.  The problem is that the APA does not establish jurisdiction for a court to hear the claim.  If this claim does not belong in the CIT, it would appear to be best addressed by the district court in the port where Mr. Schick should have filed his report.

Good luck to Mr. Schick.  I'm sorry to say that even if he finds a court with jurisdiction, the facts are going to be tough to overcome without some very compelling law.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A very timely and important reminder. I believe requirement is to file status report during the month of February. Not due Feb 1 but actually due Feb 28. Since the report is file through the port which issued license, might be best to check with your local port.

JG
Jan 30, 2009, 11:35:00 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