Happy 4th, Happy Canada Day, Etc.

It's a long weekend here. I am catching up on e-mail and news. Here are a couple interesting things.

Australian Customs and Border Protection foils a plot to smuggle reptiles in teddy bears.
More smuggling in teddy bears; this time it's cash.
Detroit area boater finds Czech national swimming to US.
UPS package contained nearly $1 million in allegedly counterfeit watches.

Here is Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune dissing Trade Adjustment Assistance. The point I think he missed is that the difference between someone in Pennsylvania losing a job to someone in Texas and the same worker losing a job to Brazil is that no affirmative change in policy by the federal government helped the job move to Texas. Since the U.S. government entered into a trade agreement that ultimately cost that American a job, it seems only decent to provide some benefits to help the worker adjust.

Chapman also forgets that tariffs are only one variable in a complex decision on where to locate production facilities. It is true that most countries and most goods already have low duty access to the U.S. market. But, an FTA removes additional barriers to trade including creating protections for investors, improved intellectual property protection, more transparent customs practices, etc. The trick for policy makers in the U.S. is to be sure that our trading partners do not enhance their cost advantages by lower labor and environmental standards or failing to enforce their laws. That is the race to the bottom, which the U.S. should not facilitate.

Comments

John said…
An importer that is not in ISA but behaves as if it were would undertake annual (or more often) risk assessments. Those reports, however, if done at the direction of counsel, would be privileged against disclosure to Customs. Further, the company could decide what to disclose to Customs.
Oct 10, 2011, 11:34:00 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