A Lesson on AGOA

Getting Customs and Border Protection to accept a claim for duty-free entry under the African Growth and Opportunity Act is becoming a tough task for your local customs lawyer. That is easily seen in Polly U.S.A. v. United States, a recent decision of the Court of International Trade.

The background story is pretty common. The importer claimed an AGOA preference on merchandise it imported from Swaziland, which is a designated Sub-Saharan beneficiary country. Customs and Border Protection requested documents that verify the origin. Polly produced some documents, but CBP rejected claim. This left Polly no choice but to protest and, when the protest was denied, to file a case at the Court of International Trade.

In the CIT, things did not go well for Polly, which raised two arguments. First, Polly claimed that Customs had authority to seek additional backup documents only when the country of origin was not plain from the entry documents. This is not correct. The AGOA regulations allow the Port Director to engage in whatever verification he or she deems necessary. That includes seeking production documents.

Polly's second argument was simply that the documents it submitted were good enough to reasonably establish Swaziland as the country of origin. Polly sought to bolster the argument by pointing out that the economic conditions in Swaziland are poor and that AGOA is intended to ameliorate that situation. Consequently, Customs should have found what appear to have been spotty records sufficient to establish AGAO qualification. The Court was sympathetic but ultimately disagreed.

What can future importers learn from this? First, an AGOA claim is going to be subject to lots of scrutiny. Have your ducks in a row before seeking duty-free entry. The importer is going to need to be able to show that at the time of entry it had reviewed records sufficient to give it reasonable assurances as to the origin of the merchandise.

The importer is also going to need records of the manufacturing or processing operations confirming the claimed origin. Customs is going to review these records carefully. Polly ran into problems because the records showed manufacturing operations had been done by people who had not clocked in to work on the relevant days. Other records showed that sewing had occurred prior to cutting, which is virtually impossible. So, it seems Customs position is that importers and their customs lawyers, need to review the documents carefully and be prepared to show a clear and consistent timeline of production steps undertaken by identifiable workers.

Lastly, the importer needs to implement internal protocols to periodically review the accuracy of the documents on which it is relying. Some companies include on-site reviews by company employees or third-party agents in this process.

Just under the surface of Polly is a potentially more interesting issue. Polly apparently made a due process claim, which the court rejected in a footnote. I have no idea what the specific claim involved. However, another case has been brought raising what appear to be similar issues. At base, the issue is what happens when CBP denies admissibility or a duty preference on the vaguest of rationales? Does it prevent the importer from making reasonable efforts to cure the defect? Assume the importer presented a 12-inch stack of records to support a claim, which Customs denied saying only that the records are insufficient or fraudulent. What is the importer supposed to do? Should it go through every document to prove its validity and sufficiency? That hardly seems like a reasonable approach. It's kind of like getting a traffic ticket and having the officer say, "Sir, I am citing you for having done something wrong back there." How would the driver defend himself or herself? In Western Power Sports, the Court approved Customs handling of the protest denial, but it seems like this issue is not going away.

Comments

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