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

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