Things I Should Have Said

I have a bad habit of assuming that people who visit this site are completely up to date on what is going on administratively. So, I failed to let people know about something fairly important: Customs issued new guidance to the ports on the proper use of the CF 28 (Request for Information) and CF 29 (Notice of Action) and how those documents relate to the commencement of an investigation. I posted about the issue here.

Due to my confirmed belief that there is no copyright in works created by the federal government, I am posting the notice in its entirety. Note, I have no idea why there are numbers throughout.

GUIDANCE:  

PASS TO:        Please pass this information to port directors, assistant port directors, import specialists, entry specialists, brokers, and importers.5

CONTACT:     For questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Ms. Laurie Dempsey,   Chief, Entry, Summary, and Drawback at (202) 863-6509, laurie.dempsey@dhs.gov.                                                                    

ENT11 OT:TPP:TFA:ESD MB May 24, 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR:   Directors, Field Operations

FROM: Executive Director, Trade Policy and Programs Office of International Trade 
SUBJECT:   CBP Forms 28 and 29 Language 

The purpose of this memorandum is to remind ports of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) policy concerning the appropriate issuance of CBP Form 28, Request for Information and CBP Form 29, Notice of Action.5 5 

The CBP Form 28 is used by CBP when there is insufficient information in the entry summary package to determine admissibility, appraised value, or classification of imported merchandise.5 Brochures, descriptive literature, blueprints, samples, proof of payment, affidavits, etc. may be requested.5

CBP has advised the field to limit the use of the CBP Form 28 for the purposes stated above and not extend its use as notification that a formal investigation has commenced as a matter of enforcement policy, not a matter of law. The preferred mechanism to inform the importer of the commencement of an investigation is by correspondence on CBP letterhead or the CBP Form 29.

CBP has also advised the field that the CBP Form 28 shall not be used to request proof of a properly executed valid power of attorney.5 CBP shall request proof of a properly executed valid power of attorney during a broker compliance visit or via an individually drafted letter. 
CBP has also advised the field concerning the use of the CBP Form 29.5 Generally, as stated in 19 CFR 152.2, an entry which is entered at a rate or value of merchandise which is too low, or the import quantity exceeds that of the entered quantity, and the estimated aggregate increase in duties exceeds $15, CBP will notify the importer of the specific nature of the difference.5 If the rate advance is a proposed action, the importer is afforded 20 days, from the date of CBP mailing the CBP Form 29, to furnish CBP with specific reasons why the rate advance should not be issued. 

It is CBP’s goal to act uniformly in providing legal notification to the appropriate party when proposing or taking certain actions.5 CBP should avoid using language on these forms such as “failure to provide information could lead to penalties under 19 USC 1592…” or “this office is investigating the classification of…” if in fact an investigation is not already in process.5 Such language defeats the goal of informed compliance and may dissuade importers from filing valid prior disclosures. 

For questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Ms. Laurie Dempsey, Chief, Entry, Summary, and Drawback at (202) 863-6509, laurie.dempsey@dhs.gov.

Please pass this information to port directors, assistant port directors, import specialists, entry specialists, brokers, and importers.5

Signed by Therese Randazzo for:Brenda B. Smith cc:5 Director, Trade Operations Division, Office of Field Operations.

This is pretty important in that is should help the trade avoid fights over whether a prior disclosure is still appropriate. Apparently, Customs is planning to engage the trade and the ports in some training related to the issue. If that happens, I'll try to remember to pass it on.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry -

While the memo is pretty clear in stating that a CF 28 is NOT to be used as a medium for informing importers of the initiation of an investigation, it gets real fuzzy concerning the use of the CF 29. It STILL leaves the importer in Limbo.

From my active days at Customs I know both Brenda and Therese, and I would have thought that either or both of them would have demanded more clarity in the notice.

As Alice once said "...curiouser and curiouser..."

Your faithful Customs retiree
Jun 3, 2011, 5:47:00 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