News You Might Want

Been slow on the news front. Here are some things that crossed my virtual desk recently:

Customs and Border Protection has July 17th as the date it will start enforcing that rule that any bulk residue in instruments of international traffic entering the U.S. must be properly manifested and entered. CBP has published a FAQ on the topic.

There will be a change to the textile rules of origin under the DR-CAFTA. According to a statement on the USTR web site:
We approved a series of changes to the Agreement’s rules-of-origin for textile and apparel goods that will facilitate regional trade and integration. These changes will expand opportunities under the CAFTA-DR Agreement and encouraging a vibrant textile and apparel supply chain in the Western Hemisphere to effectively face the challenge that Asian competitors represent. We also agreed to increase the cumulation limits to encourage greater integration of regional production through limited reciprocal duty-free access with Mexico and Canada to be used in Central American and Dominican Republic apparel, as called for under the Agreement.
The Bureau of Industry and Security has issued another notice stating that cloud computing providers are not subject to EAR so long as they are not providing anything subject to EAR. This relates to the infrastructure providers. Keep in mind that a public or private cloud user might well violate the EAR if he or she is not careful. For example, if I were to put EAR controlled technical data in a corporate cloud and let engineers in China access it, there might be a violation. That is very different from just creating and maintaining the system in which that might occur. Here is the decision.

Counterfeit iPads have hit the market. Imaging the technical resources necessary to accomplish that. If only that power were used for good, not evil.

$381,000 in your spare tire is way better than finding a $5 bill in your jeans pocket. Except, of course, for the going to jail part.

Comments

MattDC said…
Thanks for the heads-up on IPad counterfeiting, and the forces of evil. We haven't heard anything from you recently on the superhero front.
Feb 27, 2011, 3:24:00 PM
Nioxin Reviews said…
Ipad is not as bad as its sound
Feb 28, 2011, 8:59:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Regarding the changes to the DR-CAFTA textile rules of origin, here's what I wrote on my blog http://nationaltextile.blogspot.com/

While we still do not have the final text of the modifications to the textile and apparel rules of the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement ("CAFTA-DR") announced in yesterday's National Textile Association daily news blog, we understand that the changes are all ones that we have been expecting for some time. In summary, as we understand the agreement, modification will be made to five provisions of CAFTA-DR:


•The current rule requiring originating elastomeric yarn even in the case of a fabric that is on the short supply list will be modified to allow non-originating elastomeric yarn in the case of a fabric on the short supply list (the requirement for originating elastomeric yarn for other fabrics will remain unchanged),

•The current rule which requires that sewing thread originate has a technical error that permitted monofilament sewing thread to be non-originating, this will change to require all sewing thread, monofilament and plied, to originate, this is a change the National Textile Association has advocated for almost from the beginning of CAFTA-DR;

•A certain technical correction will be applied to the definition of women's sleepwear of woven fabric,

•Certain waistband rib of the same construction of the collar and cuff of a sweatshirt will be allowed to be non-originating as is currently the case for the collar and cuff, and

•While currently the short supply provision applies to only the single textile component that determines the tariff classification of a garment, this will change so that sewing thread, narrow elastic fabric, pocketing, and lining fabrics, if not available in the region, can be added to the short supply list, but only after undergoing the short supply procedures now in place to assure that only those items truly not available in the region are added to the list.

Further, as reported, the quantity of Mexican (and potentially Canadian) woven fabric used in CAFTA-DR under the cumulation provision was increased in accordance with the text of the agreement which calls for re-visiting the cumulation level, however, since current usage of cumulation is well under the cap, this is not expected to have any serious effect on trade in the near term.

As we noted yesterday, there may be a significant lapse in time between this ministerial agreement and implementation. We have further confirmed that the changes will not go into effect until all the CAFTA-DR partners have made the necessary legislative changes (no "rolling implementation"). While it is impossible to predict how long it will be before the changes are implemented, past experience suggestes it may be several months and that the trade will have ample notice of the changes before they go into effect.
Mar 3, 2011, 1:42:00 PM
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