Published April 12, 2016 by Yuri Starikov

19 C.F.R. 12.42 Hammer: Battle of Ideas, Exploitation, Elimination of Competition

Last week entities associated with “Cotton Campaign” filed a petition alleging that entities such as Ikea sell products from Turkmenistan that are made through use of forced labor. The complaint is based on CBP regulation under 19 C.F.R. § 12.42, stating in relevant part: (b) Any person outside the Customs Service who has reason to believe that merchandise produced * * * is likely to be, imported into the United States and, if the production is with the use of forced labor * * * that merchandise of the same class is being produced in the United States in such quantities as to meet the consumptive demands of the United States may communicate his belief to any port director or the Commissioner of Customs. Every such communication shall contain, or be accompanied by, (1) a full statement of the reasons for the belief, (2) a detailed description or sample of the merchandise, and (3) all pertinent facts obtainable as to the production of the merchandise abroad. If the foreign merchandise is believed to be mined, produced, or manufactured with the use of forced labor or indentured labor under penal sanctions, such communication shall also contain (4) detailed information as to the…

International Organizations Product Regulation Sovereign Nations

Customs and Border Protection Textile & Apparel Products

Published October 22, 2014 by Yuri Starikov

U.S.-Israeli Free Trade Agreement: Meeting CBP’s Burden of Proof

Importers wishing to take advantage of the U.S.-Israeli Free Trade Agreement (US-IFTA) in order to avoid paying “regular” duties and fees for the imported products should know that presentation of the Certificate of Origin may not be enough. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can ask importers to substantiate with documentation the very claims made on the certificates of origin. Often, but not always, request of the CBP officer can be overly broad. An example of one CBP officer, using CBP Form 28, making such broad request states as follows: You are hereby required to produce supporting documentation to substantiate your claim for United States-Israel Free Trade Area Implementation Act of 1985 preferential treatment, such as but not limited to, a certification of origin, cost data, as well as production and manufacturing records. State the country of origin of the goods incorporated into the goods being imported into the US, along with evidence to support this claim, including: bill of materials related to the manufacture of the goods, manufacturer purchase invoice related to the materials incorporated into the goods, and manufacture dates. Provide the name and address of the manufacturer of the goods being imported into the US. The manufacturer is…

Sovereign Nations Trade Agreements U.S. Federal Agencies

Country of Origin Customs and Border Protection Israel

Published April 24, 2014 by Yuri Starikov

CBP’s Marking Requirements for Crimea

On April 23, 2014 CBP’s Virginia McPherson advised international trade community that products from Crimea, marked as “Product of Russia,” “Made in Russia,” “Contents Made in Russia” can be subject to additional 10% marking duties due to violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1304. See CSMS #14-000236 (stating “[g]rowth, production, or manufacture of a good in Crimea is growth, production, or manufacture of a good in Ukraine.”). With CSMS #14-000236 CBP joined OFAC’s critique circle that expresses the discontent of our (U.S.) executive branch views over political situation in Crimea. My colleagues done a good analysis on OFAC’s expression of unhappiness with Russia. See e.g. Steptoe’s publication here, or Mr. Burns article here. Here, CBP’s Virginia McPherson statements invite review of the administrative precedent and analysis, as Ms. McPherson’s address offers only conclusive words with very little reasoning. In T.D. 97-16, CBP (then called Customs Service) offered a better reasoning of country of origin marking for products that were made in places of political uncertainties. Case study concerned West Bank and Gaza. Following were the major principles that CBP used for guidance in T.D. 97-16 and 95-25: CBP gives a great deal of deference to the State Department, which “requests” CBP…

International Organizations Product Regulation Sovereign Nations Trade Agreements U.S. Federal Agencies

Country of Origin Customs and Border Protection Labeling & Marking Office of Foreign Assets Control U.S. Department of State

Published August 22, 2013 by Yuri Starikov

Iranian Question

International trade community interests are frequently driven by practical concerns of immediate consequences. Many LawCustoms visitors bring their particular interests, such as savings that can be realized from a particular transaction. Other visitors are interested in a broader picture and looking to learn the structure that shapes international trade scene. History is the bridge that brings together the structure that we have today with foundation upon which it was built. Iran is particularly interesting to the U.S. international trade community largely due to its resources and geography. Steptoe & Johnson attorneys, for example, provided a well written summary of current state of U.S. sanctions applicable to Iran in their US Sanctions on Iran: 2012 Year in Review. Other distinguished members of the international trade community have written on the topic extensively as well. Undoubtedly, compliance with U.S. laws is a matter of primary concern for U.S. persons and persons that do business with the U.S. (e.g. U.S. subsidiaries). But the mere compliance with the letter, without raising questions about the spirit of the law, is probably counterproductive to the democratic principles so fundamental to the American society. If one accepts a view that “[a]n educated citizenry is a vital requisite…

Antidumping Duties: Separate Rate – Staying Ahead of the Trading Curve

If you have an interest in the U.S. antidumping laws, LawCustoms recommends Antidumping Duties: Separate Rate – Staying Ahead of The Trading Curve. The article is based on the analysis and application of the U.S. antidumping laws from the perspective of the U.S. importer and non-U.S. exporter who seek to qualify for the separate antidumping rate. The author suggests a lower cost alternative called “separate rate” available to the manufacturers and exporters of “non-market economy” nations such as the People’s Republic of China. Antidumping Duties: Separate Rate explores a recent record record published by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Customs, as well as, other governmental bodies and synthesized it into a story of experiences by members of international trade community. While the focus of the article is the application of the U.S. antidumping regime to the People’s Republic of China, many of the principles can be extended to other countries also. The story begins with a general overview and evolution of the U.S. antidumping laws from the Wilson Act to the present day Tariff Act. The overview touches on roles and responsibilities played by the manufacturers, exporters, importers, and governmental agencies. Then, the article suggests a practical “checklist” of key…

Product Regulation Sovereign Nations U.S. Federal Agencies

Antidumping China Department of Commerce Import Administration International Trade Administration

Published December 28, 2011 by Yuri Starikov

HTS Classification Methodology: Chemicals

The European Commission maintains European Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances (ECICS) database, which, contains Harmonized Tariff information on various chemical substances. European Commission, as the United States, is obliged to apply “General Rules for the interpretation of the Harmonized System and all the Section, Chapter and Subheading Notes, and shall not modify the scope of the Sections, Chapters, headings or subheadings of the Harmonized System.” See International Convention on the Harmonized System, Article 3(1)(a)(ii). Therefore, ECICS database, is highly persuasive source of information for chemical substances up to six digit level.

Product Regulation Sovereign Nations Trade Agreements

Chemical Products European Union Harmonized Tariff Schedule Classification

Published December 26, 2011 by Yuri Starikov

Useful Links: Canada

Customs Tariff Food Inspection Agency Health Canada

Useful Links: United Kingdom

International Trade (Businesslink.gov.uk) UK Trade Info

OFAC Symposium Presentations

Office of Foreign Assets and Controls (OFAC) posted .pdf screen shots of its presentation symposium. Most of information is a form of restatement of governmental policies. There are some interesting points worth noting with respect to BIS. If OFAC authorizes an export to Iran, no BIS license is required Luxury goods to N. Korea include: luxury automobiles; yachts; gems; jewelry; other fashion accessories; cosmetics; perfumes; furs; designer clothing; luxury watches; rugs and tapestries; electronic entertainment software and equipment; recreational sports equipment; tobacco; wine and other alcoholic beverages; musical instruments; art; and antiques and collectible items including but not limited to rare coins and stamps. OFAC and BIS share jurisdiction with respect to Sudan BIS Contact List for Clarifications and Questions: Main (Foreign Policy Division a.k.a. FPD) (202) 482-4252 Director, FPD Joan Roberts (202) 482-0171 jroberts@bis.doc.gov Cuba, Iran, Syria Tony Christino (202) 482-3241 tchristi@bis.doc.gov N. Korea, Sudan, Burma Susan Kramer (202) 482-0117 skramer@bis.doc.gov

Chemicals and Metals Tariff Guidance

The EU tariff website has an HTS look up feature for chemicals and metals based on CAS#. Some CBP employees use this as a source for additional guidance (to six digit level). http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/eciquer?Periodic=0&Lang=EN

Product Regulation Sovereign Nations