Ruling of the Week 2015.18: Switchblades Redux

I covered the Switchblade Act already this year, but it is back for a second look. This time in HQ 263979 (May 29, 2015). This is an instance where the importer got a surprise, and it is not the good kind.

United Cutlery asked Customs and Border Protection for the classification of a style of "folding" knife it intended to import. The knife consisted of a black metal grip and a double-edged blade that tapers to a point. The blade retracts into the grip and is released via a button that slides in a linear track along one side of the grip. SO, the knife does not "fold" at all. Pushing the button forward deploys the blade. The blade is under pressure from an internal spring and there are two detents in the track. The button drops into the detents with the blade extended either 1/16th or 5/16th of an inch. A minimal amount of force applied to the button will bypass both detents causing the blade to spring forward fully and lock in place.

The functioning of this system is important because of the way to Switchblade Act works. If the knife contains a spring and detent mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure and that requires exertion applied to the blade to overcome the bias toward closure, it is not a prohibited switchblade.

In this case, the spring creates a bias toward extending the blade. Under the Switchblade Act, that is prohibited merchandise. So the tariff classification is "doesn't matter dot inadmissible dot sorry."

Click the link above for the ruling; it has lots of good pictures. I scoured the United Cutlery website and did not see this knife. Maybe they did not yet start importing. Getting a ruling before committing to import, is the best practice, after all.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Switchblades...absolutely prohibited to import. Guns, ok with permit. What's wrong with this picture?
Jun 11, 2015, 5:34:00 PM
Larry said…
Funny you should ask. While I was drafting this post, I was wondering whether knives of any kind are protected by the Second Amendment and whether this law is constitutional. The Switchblade Act, 15 USC 1241-1245 became law in 1958. I see no cases challenging its constitutionality. It turns out there is legal scholarly work on this topic. You can find a brief discussion and a link to a law review article here: http://volokh.com/2013/11/23/knives-second-amendment/

There is also a "knife rights" organization. http://www.kniferights.org/

I looks like there is a non-frivolous argument that the Second Amendment applies. That does not mean that a ban on importation is unconstitutional. Assault weapons have been banned. Maybe the switchblade is the assault weapon of the knife trade.
Jun 11, 2015, 6:10:00 PM
Anonymous said…
Law review article [http://chicago.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=280093071001027004028110118071088024096082088010064051002110027011118005067086028110026097056005048062060022122065127065001001108032087050021070024093014021080052069076068071064084101020109117011074122096126103022120095122101088066016029067105&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2] even discusses the Congressional legislative amendment in response to Customs' attempt to reinterpret the scope of covered knives.

Personally, I am more worried about the guns that cross the border illegally (import and export) than a quick-to-draw knife. I think Customs would agree.
Jun 11, 2015, 6:34:00 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 topic. So, let's
Read more