Posts

Showing posts from April, 2017

Ruling of the Week 2017.9: Chronically Late

Image
Had I been thinking and available to do it, I would have posted this on April 20 . Sorry I am late. Grab some snacks, because we are about to discuss HQ H282163 (Apr. 13, 2017) , which addresses whether a storage case with multiple adjustable compartments and a combination lock closure is prohibited merchandise. Why would that be the case? It might help to know that the cases go by the name "Stashlogix" and come in three modes: Go-Stash, Eco-Stash and Pro-Stash. In addition to the combination lock, other Stashlogix features include a "stash journal" to "help keep track of all those crazy names," a UV-proof jar that can be re-labeled, odor absorbing packs, and a labeling marker. The products are designed "based on the principles of functionality, security, and discretion." The company advertises that the cases are used to store valuable private items such as fire-arms and addictive pharmaceuticals. Here is a picture of the "Pro-Stash&qu

Surprise, Locking Pliers Are Not Wrenches

Tariff classification is based on the common and commercial meaning of the words used in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. One of the words that has been in dispute of late is "pliers" as applied to locking pliers. To picture the product at issue, think about Vise-Grips ®, which is a registered trademark of Irwin Tools, the plaintiff in this case. An older Court of International Trade case under the prior Tariff Schedule of the United States ruled that locking pliers are classified as wrenches. The reason for this was that people use locking pliers to lock onto a nut or bolt head and to turn, or wrench it. Because people use the tool to apply torque to the nut or bolt, the CIT ruled it is, despite its name, a wrench. In the Irwin case, the CIT made two important decisions. First, it held that the prior TSUS decision did not bind it to a given result in this case. Second, the Court rejected the notion that the way people use the tool is relevant to this

Ruling of the Week: 2017.8: To Drawback, And Beyond!

ORIGINALLY POSTED MARCH 22, 2017. UPDATED APRIL 4, 2017. The customs implications of space travel have always interested me. NASA has confirmed, at least according to this article , that astronauts have to make customs declarations on returning to earth. It is not exactly clear to me whether that would be the case for an orbital flight that departs the U.S. and returns to the U.S. without an intervening stop at the International Space Station or elsewhere. In fact, the Apollo 11 customs entry seems to have been something of a joke, even if it was "official." The future is certainly going to be filled with questions about this sort of thing. What will happen, from a customs-perspective, the first time someone starts a commercial asteroid mining operation? Will we need to expand the notion of "country of origin." The obvious analogy is to ships at sea. Today, the law is clear with respect to fish caught in international waters. According to the Court of Intern

Executive Order on Customs Enforcement

Image
Apparently, the administration has pivoted to its trade agenda. Yesterday, we saw the draft letter to Congress outlining the modest goals for NAFTA renegotiations . I also tweeted the announcement that Kevin McAleenan would be nominated to Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. The last recent action is the Executive Order issued yesterday "Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and Customs Laws." What's this about? The Executive Order notes that as of May 2015, the United States has failed to collected $2.3 billion in antidumping and countervailing duties. Often, the liable importer is a foreign entity without assets in the U.S. or is insufficiently capitalized to pay the duties. Either way, the duties are uncollectable. To address this, Customs imposes bond requirements and, in certain cases, Commerce requires cash deposits of duties. As is, the bonding requirements can be onerous.

Trump Administration NAFTA Strategy

It appears the U.S. will not be withdrawing from NAFTA. At least not immediately. Yesterday, a draft letter from the Acting USTR Stephen Vaughn to Congress made its way to the public. The letter notifies Congress of President Trump's intention to initiate negotiations with Mexico and Canada to modify NAFTA. Obviously, this was a big campaign issue for candidate Trump, who declared NAFTA to be a complete disaster for the American people. The interesting thing about the draft strategy is that it is directed at making manufacturing more profitable "within the trading bloc." The President believes that will lead to job creation in the United States and support rural communities and service providers. The letter partially makes the case for NAFTA by noting that in 2016, the bloc accounted for $1.07 trillion in trade in goods and $139 billion in services. This is a fairly traditional, pro-trade, pro-NAFTA endorsement of the proposition that trade is a net positive. Howeve