Master of My Domains

I'm starting to wonder about what belongs on this blog. For that, you can blame Twitter.

I find I am posting the odd bits of customs related news here because I can toss off a tweet about it just as efficiently. If you're not following me, I'm at www.twitter.com/customslawblog. I'm also more likely to tweet random bits of nonsense over there.

That means this blog is starting to look more like a place to find reviews of Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions. That's not my intention. I want this to be more broadly focused on compliance as well serve as a spot for the occasional off topic musing.

I'm not sure where this leads (that makes it a MonsterQuest). I have recently registered two new domains: www.customslitigation.com and www.naftacompliance.com. Those represent two of the more substantial parts of my practice and interests. Maybe I'll start narrowing the focus here. For now, those URL's redirect here.

I'm interested in knowing what you think. Is it better to leave everything here? Should I quit tweeting to be sure everything is in one place? Should discussions of court cases be someplace else? Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Comments

Matt and Jennifer Travel said…
I refuse to pay attention to Twitter but I don't care how many blogs you set up as long as they have RSS feeds; I use Google Reader to keep track of your posts. Keep 'em coming.
Jun 24, 2009, 12:09:00 PM
Trade-Compliance.Org said…
Twitter is nice for posting links to other articles since it's limited to 140 characters. But if you want more in-depth analysis or add in more detail you should keep up the blog!

Also @Matt- you can get Twitter updates as an RSS feed.
Jun 24, 2009, 1:42:00 PM
Anonymous said…
We are blocked from getting Twitter while at work so I would very much appreciate keeping things on this blog.
Jun 24, 2009, 5:18:00 PM
Anonymous said…
I, too, am blocked from Twitter and would appreciate your continuing the blog here. Thanks for the great job.
Jun 30, 2009, 1:01:00 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