Vance Writing Competition

Andy Vance was a legendary figure in customs law and litigation. After a career at the Justice Department, he joined Barnes, Richardson & Colburn as a partner in the NY office. Sadly, I just missed the opportunity to work with him. The CITBA writing competition named in his honor is a great opportunity for J.D. and LL.M. students to demonstrate their interest in and knowledge of customs and international trade law. Plus, there is a monetary prize. Papers are due in June 2. See the details below.


  • 2024-2025 Andrew P. Vance Memorial Writing Competition Call for Papers

    • Wednesday, January 29, 2025
      •  
    • | Posted by CITBA Staff

    The Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA) and Georgetown Law School are pleased to announce 2024-2025 Andrew P. Vance Memorial writing Competition. The competition is welcoming papers with an in-depth analysis of a current issue relevant to customs and international trade law. Entrants must be currently enrolled in a J.D. or L.L.M. program at any of the nation's law schools. Papers must be submitted here to Georgetown Law by June 2, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. ET. For a list of past winners and to see sample papers, please click here for the CITBA website   

  • Submissions should be typewritten, double-spaced on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. The paper shall not exceed 40 pages in length, including footnotes. Papers must include footnotes, not endnotes. Papers should be in 12pt. Times New Roman font and have one-inch margins (right, left, top, and bottom).  Noncompliance with these requirements may affect evaluation or result in disqualification.  

  • Please include the following on the cover sheet of your paper: Full name, address and telephone number Law school and year Date of submission of paper Do not include any identifying information in the text of the paper itself. A committee of practicing attorneys and professors with relevant expertise will judge the papers. The following factors will be considered: Legal analysis Thoroughness and depth of topic Evaluation of judicial precedents, statutes, and regulations Writing style Form and quality of citations Conformity with rules of competition Two prizes will be awarded by CITBA: $1000.00 first prize $500.00 second prize

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Crikey and Zut Alors, What is a Diary?

Image
For more than 20 years, I have had the privilege of organizing the Dominick L. DiCarlo – US Court of International Trade Lecture at the University of Illinois – Chicago Law School (FKA the John Marshall Law School). One of the great pleasures of this experience has been working with Court of International Trade judges who have graciously participated as keynote speakers. Last week, we presented the 22 nd edition during which I had the opportunity to interview the Honorable Jane A. Restani. In a discussion on the interpretation of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Judge Restani mentioned her recent decision in Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States and asked whether I would post on the decision here. I had recently exchanged emails about the case and mistakenly thought I had already posted this. To ensure that I have not misled a judge or the audience at the event, here is that post. The question presented in this case was the classification of paper notebooks that ...
Read more

eWriters and Protests

Image
When I saw that the Court of International Trade decision in Kent Displays  involves the classification of "a battery powered flexible eWriter device containing a pressure sensitive liquid crystal writing film," I had a moment of technology-geek excitement. That feeling stemmed from my personal conversion from yellow legal pads to a reMarkable "paper tablet." Before I wax on in an ode to the reMarkable, let's deal with this case. Kent Displays imported a product called the Dashboard, which it describes as a green replacement for paper. The device is based on a "bistable cholesteric reflective LCD."  This review is of a different product from Kent Displays, but probably gives a good idea of how the Dashboard works. Here is an image from Kent Displays of its Blackboard Smart Pen Reusable Notebook.  Kent had been importing this product under HTSUS item 9013.80.7000, which at the time of entry covered: Liquid crystal devices not constituting articles pro...
Read more