Knife Fight

UPDATED AT BOTTOM

I have been avoiding this issue because I did not think many people would actually care. But, in terms of the popular press (AKA the MSM), it seems to be the customs-related story of the moment.

Knife lovers beware, Customs and Border Protection wants to treat certain pocket knives that open via a spring or other assisted release mechanism as switchblades. That change would effectively ban their importation, although owning or selling them in the U.S. would continue to be legal.

These knives differ from actual switchblades. In a switchblade, there is an external button or slide that releases the blade. Release-assisted knives require the user to press on the blade itself, which is then released.

Customs first proposed the change in the May 22, Bulletin (see page 5). All of this is based on the Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-45. For you customs geeks out there, the implementing regs are at 19 C.F.R. § 12.95-12.103.

The amount of interest in this has surprised me. That is especially true given that owning or selling the knives in the U.S. will not be affected. But, there seems to be great interest. Here is an editorial from the paper in Anchorage. This article by Bob Barr paints CBP's proposal as an Obama Administration step taken in lieu of its "stymied" gun control agenda. I seriously doubt that this issue reached the Oval Office, but then I don't believe in the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union either.

The comment period has already run, so now interested parties are waiting for a response.

UPDATE: You can tell Customs has struck a nerve. Visit here to buy your customs "Knife Rights" products complete with the message "STOP U.S. Customs' Pocket Knife Grab!" Obviously, the knife lobby has not read Customs style guidance against the possessive apostrophe. I so want the travel mug.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry I imagine you saw this in the World Interactive Update and other sources but...

http://www.strtrade.com/wti/wti.asp?pub=0&story=31475&date=7%2F14%2F2009&company=

Regards
Linda
Jul 13, 2009, 6:58:00 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