Hold Everything

UPDATE: CHECK OUT THE DISCUSSION IN COMMENTS. I MAY HAVE JUMPED THE GUN A BIT.

UPDATE 2: HERE IS THE MEMO.

The Obama Administration has halted the implementation of all pending regulatory changes until they are reviewed. This throws lots of Customs and Border Protection activity into limbo. For now, the Importer Security Filing (AKA 10 + 2), aspects of the Lacey Act, the country of origin rules, etc. are on hold.

I suspect that these things will move forward unless there is a coordinated outpouring of opposition from the trade. In the big picture, I think these issues are not likely to strike the new administration with the same force as, for example, putting a drilling rig on every beach from Maine to Florida.

But, all we can do is wait and see.

Another thing to watch will be action or inaction on trade agreements. Columbia, Korea, and others have been stalled. The Obabma people have not been kind to FTAs until this point. So, we wait on that as well.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry,

The order was aimed only at those items not yet published in the Federal Register, of which 10+2, Lacey and several others were already published. To move against what's published would be, I believe, exceeding his authority.

Now he can request that the agencies involved extend implementation beyond the requisite 60 days after publication to, say, an addition 60 days, but the agencies are not obliged.

Lacey implementation has been extended because of inherent problems, a decision that I think predates the inauguration. But 10+2 will not likely be extended because of the already existing one year structured review period.

My guess anyway.
Jan 23, 2009, 11:50:00 PM
Larry said…
I gather no decision has been made on what to do with 10 + 2 but other published proposals are on hold. But, I freely admit that I am working from rumor and unconfirmed sources here. As I say at the top of the page, this isn't legal advice (which I know is not an excuse to say any old thing I hear). I'll update as we get info. Also, watch the news panel at www.barnesrichardson.com.
Jan 24, 2009, 11:34:00 AM
Aduana said…
Congratulations by your blog.

From a portuguese customs lawyer.
Jan 25, 2009, 2:52:00 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