The Consumer Product Safety Commission has proposed significant changes to its regulations on the certificates of compliance required to be submitted for imported and domestically-made consumer products. There are a number of issues left unresolved by this proposal and interested parties have until July 29 to submit questions and comments. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement [...]
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has proposed significant changes to its regulations on the certificates of compliance required to be submitted for imported and domestically-made consumer products. There are a number of issues left unresolved by this proposal and interested parties have until July 29 to submit questions and comments.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires manufacturers and private labelers of children’s products subject to a children’s product safety rule to certify such products as compliant based on testing conducted by a third-party laboratory. The CPSIA also requires manufacturers and private labelers of regulated non-children’s products to certify compliance based on a test of each product or on a reasonable testing program.
The Commission is proposing to amend the regulations implementing these requirements to make the following changes.
Who must certify. Importers would continue to have the obligation to certify finished products manufactured outside the U.S. that are not delivered directly to U.S. consumers; i.e., they cannot simply pass along a component supplier’s certificate.
“Importer” would be defined as the importer of record; i.e., either the owner or purchaser of the merchandise or, when appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser or consignee, a person holding a valid customs broker’s license. Thus, a validly licensed broker who serves as the importer of record for the imported products (which may include common carriers, contract carriers, third-party logistics providers and freight forwarders) would be responsible for issuing the certificate of compliance with respect to those products. Continue reading »
The Federal Trade Commission is accepting comments through July 8 on a proposed rule that aims to clarify and update the Textile Labeling Rules and make them more flexible, giving businesses more compliance options without imposing significant new obligations. The Textile Rules require that certain textiles sold in the U.S. carry labels disclosing the generic [...]
The Federal Trade Commission is accepting comments through July 8 on a proposed rule that aims to clarify and update the Textile Labeling Rules and make them more flexible, giving businesses more compliance options without imposing significant new obligations.
The Textile Rules require that certain textiles sold in the U.S. carry labels disclosing the generic names and percentages by weight of the fibers in the product, the manufacturer or marketer name, and the country where the product was processed or manufactured.
Trade community members who have utilized the Centers of Excellence and Expertise being opened by U.S. Customs and Border Protection have largely had a positive experience, according an initial survey of CEE users conducted in March. Just over half the 769 survey respondents identified themselves as importers, and the industries most represented among respondents were [...]
Trade community members who have utilized the Centers of Excellence and Expertise being opened by U.S. Customs and Border Protection have largely had a positive experience, according an initial survey of CEE users conducted in March. Just over half the 769 survey respondents identified themselves as importers, and the industries most represented among respondents were textiles, apparel and footwear; industrial and manufacturing materials; and consumer products and mass merchandising.
Of the nine percent of survey respondents who are currently CEE participating account members, 54% are also members of the Importer Self-Assessment program and 100% are participating in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Three-quarters of these respondents said they were very satisfied, and over 96% had their issues resolved, after contacting a CEE. Most said they contact the CEEs a few times a year, often to discuss C-TPAT questions and procedures, and their primary trade facilitation concerns include cargo holds and CBP requests for information (CF-28s). In addition, most respondents said they have seen benefits such as fast shipment delay resolutions, direct contact with CBP and transparency into CBP requirements.
The survey revealed similar information on the 21% of respondents that are CEE non-participating account members. These respondents primarily contact CEEs about C-TPAT questions and procedures, CBP holds and release times, and exams, and their top trade facilitation concerns were also CF-28s and cargo holds. Nearly 20% reached out to CEEs on compliance issues and 61% of those said they received adequate assistance. Benefits cited included one-point contact and transparency into CBP requirements. Continue reading »
On April 18, 2013, CBP announced the opening of three new Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE): Base Metals in Chicago; Industrial & Manufacturing Materials (IMM) in Buffalo, N.Y., and Machinery in Laredo, Texas. The virtual centers are the product of extensive collaboration between industry stakeholders and CBP. CBP is currently accepting applications from importers [...]
On April 18, 2013, CBP announced the opening of three new Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE): Base Metals in Chicago; Industrial & Manufacturing Materials (IMM) in Buffalo, N.Y., and Machinery in Laredo, Texas. The virtual centers are the product of extensive collaboration between industry stakeholders and CBP. CBP is currently accepting applications from importers to participate in the new Centers. Importers interested in participating in a Center can apply through the Federal Register Notice.
The IMM CEE located in Buffalo, NY is comprised of a wide range of raw, partially processed and processed materials used for a variety of purposes. In general, the IMM CEE will be handling the following: Ceramics; Glass; Leather; Lightbulbs; Paper; Plastics; Precious Metals and Stones; Prefabricated Buildings; Rubber; Stone, Cement and Plaster; and Wood. The attached spreadsheet provides a more detailed list of the HTS numbers (to the fourth digit) along with heading descriptions.
The IMM CEE can be contacted via email at CEE-IndustrialMaterials@cbp.dhs.gov or by phone at (716) 843-8504, Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Eastern Time. Callers/Emailers will be asked to describe their concerns or experience and provide contact information. An IMM CEE representative will provide a prompt response.
The complete press release announcing the opening of the three new Centers can be viewed via the web here. Further information regarding the Centers of Excellence and Expertise is available here.
Related: CBP Issues Guidelines on Test of Centers of Excellence and Expertise (STR Trade Report)
Written testimony of DHS Management Directorate, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency hearing titled “The Impact of Sequestration on Homeland Security: Scare Tactics or Possible Threat?” “While our recently enacted appropriations will help [...]
Written testimony of DHS Management Directorate, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency hearing titled “The Impact of Sequestration on Homeland Security: Scare Tactics or Possible Threat?”
“While our recently enacted appropriations will help DHS to mitigate – to some degree – the impacts of sequestration on our operations and workforce that were originally projected under the FY 2013 Continuing Resolution (CR) enacted on September 28, 2012, there is no doubt that these cuts will affect operations in the short- and long-term. Lines and wait times at our ports of entry (POEs) are longer, affecting travel and trade; the take home pay of the men and women on the frontlines will be reduced; and employees across the Department as well as the public we serve face uncertainty based on sudden budgetary reductions that must be met by the end of the year. The long-term effects of sustained cuts at these levels will result in reduced operational capacity, breached staffing floors, and economic impacts to the private sector through reduced and cancelled contracts. In spite of the substantial and far reaching cuts mandated by sequestration, we will continue to do everything we can to minimize impacts on our core mission and employees, consistent with the operational priorities in our 2014 budget.”
Click here to read the complete testimony.
The International Trade Administration has issued a final rule that, effective May 10, will amend its regulations regarding the definition of factual information and the submission of factual information in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. This rule: – modifies the definition of factual information to include five categories: (1) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires, [...]
The International Trade Administration has issued a final rule that, effective May 10, will amend its regulations regarding the definition of factual information and the submission of factual information in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. This rule:
- modifies the definition of factual information to include five categories: (1) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires, (2) evidence submitted in support of allegations, (3) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), (4) evidence placed on the record by the ITA, and (5) evidence other than factual information described above;
- establishes specific time limits for the submission of information under each category to help prevent situations in which the ITA has to review large amounts of factual information when it is too late to adequately examine, analyze, conduct follow-up inquiries and, if necessary, verify the information; and
- requires submitters to specify the category of information they are submitting.
The ITA states that if parties find that an administrative record is lacking factual information they should explain what additional information they wish to submit, explain why it was not available for timely submission and request that the ITA accept it. If there is adequate time for rebuttal, comment, analysis and thorough consideration of the new, previously unavailable information and the ITA could potentially verify it, the agency may elect to permit submission. Otherwise, the reliability of such late-submitted information cannot be assured.
This rule will apply to any interested party submitting information to the ITA in AD/CV proceedings, which could include exporters and producers of merchandise subject to AD/CV proceedings and their affiliates, importers of such merchandise, domestic producers of like products, and foreign governments.
Source: STR Trade Report
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced an expansion and modification of a general test concerning its Centers of Excellence and Expertise, which aim to facilitate the entry of merchandise imported by companies within certain industries. A notice concerning this test, including the application process and eligibility and selection criteria, is available in the April [...]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced an expansion and modification of a general test concerning its Centers of Excellence and Expertise, which aim to facilitate the entry of merchandise imported by companies within certain industries. A notice concerning this test, including the application process and eligibility and selection criteria, is available in the April 4 Federal Register.
CBP’s goal is to incrementally transition the operational trade functions that traditionally reside with the ports of entry until they reside entirely with the CEEs. By focusing on industry-specific issues and providing tailored support for participating importers, CBP is seeking to facilitate trade, reduce transaction costs, increase compliance with applicable import laws, and achieve uniformity of treatment at ports of entry. CBP believes that providing broad decision-making authority to the CEEs for entry processing issues will better enable them to achieve these goals and is conducting the ongoing CEE test to determine if that is true. Read more here.
Source: STR Trade Report
This complimentary one-hour webinar, presented by F. Gordon Lee of Nossaman LLP, is designed to provide importers, customs brokers, freight forwarders and the international trade community with practical thoughts and ideas on how to effectively deal with many issues that arise when importing into the United States and dealing with United States Customs and Border Protection. Topics covered during [...]
This complimentary one-hour webinar, presented by F. Gordon Lee of Nossaman LLP, is designed to provide importers, customs brokers, freight forwarders and the international trade community with practical thoughts and ideas on how to effectively deal with many issues that arise when importing into the United States and dealing with United States Customs and Border Protection.
Topics covered during the webinar will include:
• How to Approach and Interface with Customs
• Importer of Record and its Responsibilities
• Classification, Valuation, and Country of Origin
• How to Manage and Respond to Requests for Information and Notices of Action
• How to Manage and Respond to Investigations and Penalty Actions
• The Role of the Customs Broker in Import Transactions
Practical advice will be offered and time for questions and answers will be provided.
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time: 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT
Speaker:
F. Gordon Lee, a member of the Firm’s Washington, DC office, has more than 35 years of experience in assisting and advising clients in customs matters. He has represented a myriad of companies and individuals in various aspects of customs law and regulations, including specific emphasis on defending against audits and civil and criminal penalty investigations and actions.
Click here to register for this free webinar.
Last Chance To Register! Every article of foreign origin entering the U.S. must be legibly marked with its country of origin. This requirement places great responsibility on manufacturers and importers and exposes trade professionals to possible penalties or even sanctions for non-compliance. This webinar will provide attendees with a basic overview of the country of [...]
Last Chance To Register!
Every article of foreign origin entering the U.S. must be legibly marked with its country of origin. This requirement places great responsibility on manufacturers and importers and exposes trade professionals to possible penalties or even sanctions for non-compliance. This webinar will provide attendees with a basic overview of the country of origin marking regulations and tips on ensuring compliance. Specific topics will include the following.
• acceptable terminology
• methods for marking
• “Made in the USA:” FTC v. CBP rules
• procedures regarding certificate of origin completion
• procedures regarding entry procedures and claims
• penalties for non-compliance
• best practices
Speaker:
Nicole Kehoskie is an Associate with Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., resident in the Chicago office. Her practice is focused on import and export trade law. With regard to imports, Ms. Kehoskie has extensive experience with statutory and regulatory compliance, including internal audits, supply chain security, corporate manuals and training, focused assessments, prior disclosures, penalties, protests, and seizures by U.S. Customs. She also engineers duty-saving programs that determine whether goods qualify under free trade agreements and preference programs. Ms. Kehoskie’s practice includes compliance with other trade-related regulatory agencies such as the GSA, FTC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, USDA, DOL and APHIS, as well as facilitating government procurement contracts. As part of the Litigation Practice Group she has represented clients before the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Court of International Trade.
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013
Time: 1:00PM-2:30PM EST
Cost: $200 USD
CLICK HERE to Register
Note: This seminar has been certified by NCBFAA Educational Institute for Certified Customs Specialist (CCS) continuing education credits.
CCS credits: 1.5
Have you heard about CBP’s Residue Pilot and wondered what it means to your operations? Integration Point is hosting a one-hour, free webcast featuring three speakers from Customs and Border Protection to share information on this pilot program. The panelists will provide an overview of the key points of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [...]
Have you heard about CBP’s Residue Pilot and wondered what it means to your operations?
Integration Point is hosting a one-hour, free webcast featuring three speakers from Customs and Border Protection to share information on this pilot program.
The panelists will provide an overview of the key points of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection National Customs Automation Program Test Concerning Manifesting and Entry of Residue Found in Instruments of International Traffic (IITs) with a focus on the following key areas:
• Background on the Residue Pilot
• Calculations used by CBP to determine percentages by mode
• Technical issues – entry off the manifest
• User fees
• Roll out of the pilot, enforcement and outreach planned
• Issues on Import Security Filings, bonding and record keeping
Date/Time: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 | 2:00 PM EST
Click here to register for this FREE webcast.
Find out more about CBP issues with regard to Residual Cargo and Instruments of International Traffic here.
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Or.) and John Thune (R – S.D.) recently introduced the Low Value Shipment Regulatory Modernization Act of 2013, which would raise the de minimis value from $200 to $800. The de minimis is the threshold at which shipments coming into the United States are exempt from tariffs, taxes or customs procedures. “If [...]
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Or.) and John Thune (R – S.D.) recently introduced the Low Value Shipment Regulatory Modernization Act of 2013, which would raise the de minimis value from $200 to $800. The de minimis is the threshold at which shipments coming into the United States are exempt from tariffs, taxes or customs procedures.
“If you bring back goods from abroad, you’re allowed up to $800 [worth as tax free],” says Eugene Laney, vice-president of international trade affairs for DHL Express. “But for commercial products, it’s only $200.”
By raising the de minimis level, Laney says that the government’s workload will be reduced and simplified – a benefit that he says is increasingly valuable due to the spending cuts caused by sequestration.
Laney also says an increase to $800 will help domestic manufacturers, as they will be able to import goods and materials more quickly.
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: Gabrielle Karol | FOX Business
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has unveiled a proposal to establish a new Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism system of records, known as the DHS/CBP-018 C-TPAT System of Records. This new system of records collects and manages information, including personally identifiable information, about prospective, ineligible, current or former trade partners in C-TPAT and other entities [...]
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has unveiled a proposal to establish a new Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism system of records, known as the DHS/CBP-018 C-TPAT System of Records.
This new system of records collects and manages information, including personally identifiable information, about prospective, ineligible, current or former trade partners in C-TPAT and other 
entities and individuals in their supply chains. The system also collects and maintains information, including personally identifiable information, regarding members of a foreign government secure supply chain program that have been recognized by CBP through a mutual recognition arrangement or a comparable arrangement as being compatible with the program. The C-TPAT program provides a security link portal that allows partners and applicants to access and manage their information.
CBP notes that it is publishing this new system of records notice to notify the public about the system, permit trade partners access to the information they provide, and offer a description of how and where information is collected and maintained. The new system of records will be effective on April 12 unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination.
DHS has issued a separate notice in the Federal Register seeking input by April 12 on a related proposal that would exempt portions of this new system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements. CBP believes that these exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities.
Source: STR Trade Report
In preparation for operating under sequestration, CBP has redirected resources toward only the most critical, core functions and has discontinued or postponed certain important but less critical activities in an effort to reduce budget expenditures. The mandated across-the-board spending cuts took effect on March 1, 2013. The cuts tied to the sequestration will be made [...]
In preparation for operating under sequestration, CBP has redirected resources toward only the most critical, core functions and has discontinued or postponed certain important but less critical activities in an effort to reduce budget expenditures.
The mandated across-the-board spending cuts took effect on March 1, 2013. The cuts tied to the sequestration will be made equally across the agency, with no preference by port of arrival. The first, immediate cuts will reduce overtime beginning March 1st, and personnel furloughs may begin in mid-April. CBP managers at the field offices and ports of entry conducted an in-depth analysis of their operations to identify any current activities, duties, and hours of operation that could be adjusted to mitigate the impact of the significant reductions in expenditures mandated by the sequester.
However, given the magnitude of the reductions, CBP currently estimates that there may potentially be delays up to several hours at land border crossings, passenger processing times may increase by about 50%, and there may be up to an additional five days added to cargo inspections at ocean ports of entry.
Once furloughs commence, there may be more risk-based adjustments made regarding other inspections, with less impact to trusted travelers and trusted traders. There could be some eventual delays in providing advice and rulings. Additionally, strategic initiatives such as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the rollout of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE) may be impacted. Continue reading »
U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued Feb. 27 a message warning importers that a significant number of foreign food facility registrations that were not renewed by the Jan. 31 deadline are currently in the process of being modified to an invalid status by the Food and Drug Administration. As a result, imported food shipments manufactured [...]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued Feb. 27 a message warning importers that a significant number of foreign food facility registrations that were not renewed by the Jan. 31 deadline are currently in the process of being modified to an invalid status by the Food and Drug Administration. As a result, imported food shipments manufactured by such facilities may be held at the port or refused upon arrival in the U.S.
The 2002 Bioterrorism Act requires all domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food, beverages, food ingredients, pet foods or dietary supplements for consumption in the United States to register as a food facility with the FDA. Section 102 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act updated that law to require such registrations to be renewed between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31 of each even-numbered year. The FDA may suspend the registration number of any facility that fails to comply, resulting in a prohibition on the importation, distribution or sale of food from the suspended facility.
The FDA is continuing to encourage import filers who file prior notices for food shipments to be proactive and contact clients with high-volume food shipments, inquire about the FSMA food facility registration renewal status of foreign manufacturing facilities associated with their shipments, and confirm any new registration numbers. CBP states that doing so could greatly mitigate any import food shipment delays related to food facility registration.
FDA Solutions Group LLC, a consulting company affiliated with the customs and international trade law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, assists foreign and domestic clients with the registration and compliance requirements affecting FDA-regulated industry. FDA Solutions Group makes it easy for food facilities to protect against suspension and costly business interruptions through its turn-key registration and U.S. agent services.
The US Government is requesting that the World Customs Organization (WCO) establish an international BASE CODE set of intended use codes. Governments often need to understand the intended use of an imported product to effectively review products for admission at borders. Although there is the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System can be used to [...]
The US Government is requesting that the World Customs Organization (WCO) establish an international BASE CODE set of intended use codes. Governments often need to understand the intended use of an imported product to effectively review products for admission at borders. Although there is the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System can be used to denote the static characteristics of a product, there is no standardized global set of intended use codes.
The US has proposed just such a system based on a standardized list of codes developed by the ITDS Product Information Committee (PIC). These codes were developed for adoption in the US, and is coordinating with the Canadian Border Services Agencies on behalf of the Canadian Other Government Departments under the auspices of the US Beyond the Border Single Window Initiative the adoption of these intended use codes as a regional standard. This code set is offered as the starting point for the development of an international standard by WCO.
Description of code set
A standardized intended use code set must meet two objectives: 1) ensure that each consignment can be codified with a high-level intended use code that is globally applicable; and 2) allow relevant specific use cases to be identified in accordance with national regulations. To accomplish both purposes, a two-part intended use code value is proposed, similar in concept to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The first part of the intended use code would be a globally managed base code that denotes the high-level intended use for that imported product. The second part of the code would be a nationally managed sub code that uses a three-digit ISO country code prefix to identify the nation that defined the sub code. The use of sub codes by national governments would be optional.
Read the full article on the Harmonized System for Intended Use Codes.
Bryce Hanson is a Search Engine Marketing Administrator for CUSTOMS Info | Global Data Mining and is a frequent blogger on their International Trade Industry Blog. Please feel free to reach out to him on Twitter, Google+, or Linkedin.
These days, Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) is the target of much hyperbolic and hysterical attack, based not on facts, but on myth stemming from the diverse agendas of the criticizing parties. One of the most recent attacks emanates from the Cato Institute. It is easily rebutted when one [...]
These days, Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) is the target of much hyperbolic and hysterical attack, based not on facts, but on myth stemming from the diverse agendas of the criticizing parties. One of the most recent attacks emanates from the Cato Institute. It is easily rebutted when one examines the actual facts. We summarize below the assertions, and then state the facts.
Fiction: The U.S. International Trade Commission/Section 337 is redundant.
Fact: A Section 337 complainant can have one-stop shopping within one case, to provide it relief against all infringing imports, with no need for personal jurisdiction over the defendants/respondents; and the relief in the form of an exclusion order will be enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The same relief is not available in any other U.S. forum. In other U.S. fora, an entity confronted by unfair acts from imported articles must sue multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, only where personal jurisdiction exists, enforcing the various judgments separately, on its own. Moreover, in such other fora, an entity may not be able to enforce monetary damages against foreign parties, leaving the complaining party without a remedy for the unfair act committed.
Finally, a complainant can get speedy resolution at the International Trade Commission (ITC), which often is not possible in federal district court. This is particularly so when stays pending appeal are routinely granted with respect to remedial relief granted by other U.S. fora, whereas such stays are almost never granted with respect to relief issued by the ITC.
Indeed, the importance and uniqueness of the ITC/Section 337 are clear—if Section 337 were redundant, companies would have no need to bring both a district court action and an ITC action. The fact that so many entities bring both highlights that Section 337 fulfills a different role from that of a federal district court (in fiscal year 2012, almost 85 percent of the complaints filed at the ITC also involved parallel district court proceedings).
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: National Law Journal | Alice A. Kipel and Charles F. Schill
Earlier this year, the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) cited customs and international trade law firm Sandler/Travis’s reporting in its Daily Report that “CBP is expected to issue by the end of May a proposed rule that would make various changes to increase the accuracy and reliability of the advance information submitted under the importer [...]
Earlier this year, the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) cited customs and international trade law firm Sandler/Travis’s reporting in its Daily Report that “CBP is expected to issue by the end of May a proposed rule that would make various changes to increase the accuracy and reliability of the advance information submitted under the importer security filing, or ‘10 + 2 rule.’
It added that while fines for non-compliance were set at $5,000 per incident, Sandler/Travis said that CBP has not strongly required full compliance and that the proposed rule could set forth the agency’s intention to do so and establish standards under which full compliance could take place.
Considering I have not heard or seen a whole lot regarding ISF/10+2 of late, I thought it might be a good idea to ask someone in the know, Albert Saphir, principal of ABS Consulting, in Bradenton, Florida. What Albert told me was very interesting.
“CBP has stated that a final ISF rule (the current one is still not a final one legally speaking) should be forthcoming this year, and everyone expecting penalties (liquidated damages) to then be enforced by CBP,” he said. “From what I know, CBP has not issued any penalties yet for ISF violations and failures. In my view this is resulting in many importers and customer brokers (and forwarders) taking a relaxed approach which often means late and inaccurate filings from what I have seen. Many have stated to me privately that ‘CBP does not care so why should we?’ It is not a good attitude but understandable if ISF is not enforced.
What’s more, he said that CBP made such a big issue about ISF, even codifying benefits for compliant companies (obviously elusive until enforced) that he has been surprised that enforcement has not yet taken place, although this most likely this will finally change in 2013, he said.
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: Logistics Management | Jeff Berman
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently announced that a Japan-based company, Toyo Ink SC Holdings Co. Ltd., and various affiliated entities, have agreed to pay $45 million plus interest to settle allegations that they knowingly failed to pay antidumping and countervailing duties. DOJ alleged that these companies, between 2002 and 2010, knowingly misrepresented or [...]
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently announced that a Japan-based company, Toyo Ink SC Holdings Co. Ltd., and various affiliated entities, have agreed to pay $45 million plus interest to settle allegations that they knowingly failed to pay antidumping and countervailing duties. DOJ alleged that these companies, between 2002 and 2010, knowingly misrepresented or caused to be misrepresented the country of origin on documents presented to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). These misrepresentations allegedly allowed the companies to avoid paying duties, and particularly countervailing and antidumping duties, on certain imported products.
This case represents much more than just an importer allegedly evading duty payments as it has many different elements to it, one being substantial transformation. The products at issue were colorant carbazole violet pigment number 23 (CVP-23). While the companies represented the products’ country of origin to be either Japan or Mexico, to which antidumping or countervailing duties would not apply, the products actually originated either in India or China, to which antidumping or countervailing duties would apply. The CVP-23 products went through a finishing process either in Japan or Mexico before being imported into the U.S., but the government maintained that those processes were not sufficient to substantially transform the products into products of Japan or Mexico. Consequently, the government challenged the companies’ claims that the products were not subject to antidumping or countervailing duties. If nothing else, this case underscores the value of making honest and accurate country-of-origin claims based on substantial transformation. But this case raises important additional concerns for importers. Continue reading »
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Mexico’s Tax Administration Service (SAT) signed a Joint Work Plan yesterday that lays out the path to mutual recognition of the two countries’ Authorized Economic Operator programs: CBP’s Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and SAT’s New Certified Companies Scheme (NEEC). The plan, expected to be implemented in two [...]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Mexico’s Tax Administration Service (SAT) signed a Joint Work Plan yesterday that lays out the path to mutual recognition of the two countries’ Authorized Economic Operator programs: CBP’s Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and SAT’s New Certified Companies Scheme (NEEC). The plan, expected to be implemented in two years, was signed by CBP Deputy Commissioner David V. Aguilar and SAT Director Aristóteles Nuñez Sánchez.
The Joint Work Plan lays out the path forward to mutual recognition between the two programs. Mutual recognition allows for companies enrolled in one program to receive reciprocal benefits from the other with the result of both further securing the international supply chain and facilitating trade between the United States and Mexico.
C-TPAT is a voluntary government-business initiative to build cooperative relationships that strengthen and improve overall international supply chain and U.S. border security. C-TPAT recognized that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can provide the highest level of cargo security only through close cooperation with the ultimate owners of the international supply chain such as importers, carriers, consolidators, licensed customs brokers, and manufacturers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a final rule that, effective Feb. 28, will allow for the publication of notices of seizure and intent to forfeit on an official government forfeiture website. CBP believes this change will reduce administrative costs and improve the effectiveness of its notice procedures because Internet publication will reach a [...]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a final rule that, effective Feb. 28, will allow for the publication of notices of seizure and intent to forfeit on an official government forfeiture website. CBP believes this change will reduce administrative costs and improve the effectiveness of its notice procedures because Internet publication will reach a broader range of the public and provide access to more parties who may have an interest in the seized property.
CBP has authority to seize property violating certain laws enforced or administered by CBP or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Such seized property may be forfeited and disposed of in a manner specified by applicable provisions of law, which generally authorize the government to take possession of and legally acquire title to the seized property. Under the CBP forfeiture procedure, a party may assert a claim to the seized property through judicial or administrative proceedings.
Section 607 of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires CBP to publish notice of seizure and intent to forfeit for at least three successive weeks. CBP is also required to issue written notice of the seizure and forfeiture to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized property. CBP regulations set forth the procedure that must be followed when CBP seizes and gives notice of intent to forfeit property under administrative forfeiture proceedings, and these procedures apply when CBP seizes (1) a prohibited importation, (2) a transporting conveyance if used to import, export, transport or store a controlled substance or listed chemical, (3) any monetary instrument within the meaning of 31 USC 5312(a)(3), or (4) any conveyance, merchandise or baggage, the value of which does not exceed $500,000.
Under this final rule CBP will post all seizure and forfeiture notices for 30 consecutive days on an official government forfeiture Web site (which CBP has said will be the Department of Justice’s forfeiture Web site). For property appraised in excess of $5,000, CBP will no longer need to publish administrative seizure and forfeiture notices in newspapers (although it will still have discretion to do so) and will notify all known parties-in-interest of the Web site posting and the expected date of publication. For seized property appraised at $5,000 or less, CBP will continue to also post notice at the customhouse or U.S. Border Patrol sector office.
Source: STR Trade Report
