Page Slap

It's been a pretty busy couple of weeks and will continue to be. Earlier this week, I participated as co-counsel for the plaintiff in a mock trial sponsored by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association. The trial went reasonably well, although I was surprised by a document I created on which I failed to check the math. Note to self: Don't do that in real life.

There have been a couple developments recently that deserve some blog coverage:

Here is video of testimony on the Customs Reauthorization bill.

Customs and Border Protection has published a Federal Register Notice regarding the use of sampling methodologies and offsetting overpayments in audits. This is interesting because statistical sampling in audits and prior disclosure perfections has been somewhat ad hoc. The issue has generally been whether the importer and the auditor could come to an agreement on a reasonable means of calculating the duties owed. Both sides generally understand that it is often not worth the effort and resources to get to an exact number when a reasonable amount of work will get to a number the protects the interests of the United States. Enter statistical sampling, in which both sides agree to a method of selecting a random universe of items for review and to be bound be the results in some way.

Under the proposal:
  • CBP will have sole discretion of decide whether sampling is to be applied or accepted
  • CBP will explain the approved sampling methodology
  • Once accepted, the audited party cannot challenge the methodology [Waive your red flag here.]
  • CBP always reserve the right to conduct a full entry-by-entry audit
The same proposal covers offsetting overpayments identified by auditors. The problem here is that often in an audit, it will be determined that an importer overpaid on some entries and underpaid on others. Traditionally, Customs did not permit the importer to use the overpayments to offset the amount owed due to underpayments. For dumping lawyers, this is a little like zeroing. Under the Trade Act of 2002, CBP must permit offsetting in an audit situation where:
  • The overpayments are identified during a CBP audit
  • The audit was completed after August 6, 2002
  • The overpayments relate to liquidated entries
  • The overpayments are within the scope of the audit
  • The overpayments were not made for illegal purposes
An important note is that CBP will not treat the failure to claim a duty preference at the time of entry as an overpayment. Also, offsetting will not be permitted to result in a net refund.

If you want to comment on this, your deadline is December 21, 2009.

Comments

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

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more