In October 2015, Department of Justice published conviction and penalty information of Lumber Liquidators Inc.’ criminal activities (also available here). The fine is $13,150,000. According to February 2, 2016 Google Finance report, (holding) company’s market cap is about $354,470,000. This means that Lumber Liquidators Inc.’s criminal activities cost company 3.7 percent of its market cap (attorneys’ fees not included). According to DOJ, it is “the largest financial penalty ever under the Lacey Act.” Now that the Lacey Act criminal precedent is set to cost 3.7% of the corporate market cap, it is a good reason to revisit Lacey Act itself, especially since its has been over four years since LawCustoms published on the topic. In a nutshell, Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law. Lumber Liquidators Inc. pleaded guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 (entry of goods by means of false statements). Lacey Act requires importer of to submit a…
International Trade Community should pay close attention to seemingly vague but very important documents to which administrative agencies must adhere. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of United States Department of Agriculture (APHIS) yesterday’s bulletin notice is one such reminder. Since Customs and Border Protection (CBP) works very closely with APHIS, these policies should have direct influence on CBP decision-making process also. On the surface, APHIS bulletin notice – Alternatives to Rulemaking – calls APHIS to adopt a practice that CBP has established for sometime under its ruling system. I invite readers to dive a little deeper into APHIS publication and make it part of a professional toolbox. When administrative agency takes regulatory action – such as liquidation of entry with increased duties by CBP – the affected party may need more time to rebut CBP’s determination. At the same time, that party may not prefer to resolve this issue at post-liquidation stage (e.g. protest, litigation). While regulatory framework provides for extension of time for liquidation at importer’s request, importer is required to demonstrate “good cause.” Notion of “good cause” revolves around facts (usually case specific). APHIS Alternatives to Rulemaking article is a friendly reminder that “good cause” can also…
Read More APHIS and White House Policy For Achieving Regulatory Ends
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant and Plant Product Permits Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export Foreign Agricultural Service General Sales Manager Online System Global Agricultural Trade System Food Safety Inspection Service Foreign establishments certified to export meat, poultry and egg products to the United States FSIS Jurisdiction Over Flavor Products Containing Meat or Poultry Regulations and Policies Agricultural Marketing Service Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
Read More Useful Links: United States Department of Agriculture
Importers of any products falling within these headings need to be aware of declaration requirements administered by APHIS. The easiest way to stay informed of developments is to sign up for APHIS email alerts. Briefly, if your product is falling within these headings, you need to report it using APHIS declaration. According to Q/A APHIS posting, “Importers should have the form available for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to review at the port of entry. After CBP clears the shipment, the importer must mail the form to USDA at the following address: The Lacey Act, c/o the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Box 10, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737.” This is yet another statistical exercise that may bring forward liability for of the importers: “The Lacey Act now makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with some limited exceptions, taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of the laws of the United States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any foreign law that protects plants or that regulates certain plant related offenses. It is the responsibility of the importer to be aware of any foreign laws that may…
Animal and Plant Inspection Service HTS Heading 4401 HTS Heading 4402 HTS Heading 4403 HTS Heading 4404 HTS Heading 4406 HTS Heading 4407 HTS Heading 4408 HTS Heading 4409 HTS Heading 4412 HTS Heading 4414 HTS Heading 4417 HTS Heading 4418 HTS Heading 4419 HTS Heading 4420 HTS Heading 4421 HTS Heading 6602 HTS Heading 8201 HTS Heading 9201 HTS Heading 9202 HTS Heading 9302 HTS Heading 9305 HTS Heading 9401 HTS Heading 9504 HTS Heading 9703 Lacey Act
As an international traveler, I wonder if one can bring some beef purchased from the corner butcher shop in the old country? Correct answer – depends on the agriculture inspector at the port of entry. Politically correct answer – probably not. FSIS Recent directive “IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS FOR OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL PURPOSES” states that FSIS regulations allow three classes of products covered by the FMIA, PPIA, or EPIA to be imported from any country without meeting all FSIS requirements. These product classes are (1) products for personal consumption; (2) products for laboratory examination, research, evaluative testing, or trade show exhibition; and (3) shipments destined for sale in foreign commissaries located in the United States. FSIS’s regulations, 9 CFR 327.16 would allow a person to bring a 50 lb case of meat from the old country: “Any product in a quantity of 50 pounds or less which was purchased by the importer outside the United States for his/her own consumption, is eligible to be imported into the United States from any country without compliance with the provisions in other sections of this part but subject to applicable requirements under other laws, including the regulations in part 94 of this title. However,…
It appears that jurisdictional issues regarding dry “chicken” soup mixes and like products cause much confusion not only among importers, but also within government circles. The “clarification” that went out is the second attempt to figure out who is responsible for what. About two years ago, Veterinary Services (VS) published 2% rule “clarification” that talked about this very issue, which has now been removed. It seems that following is the most substantive statement of the clarification: “Beginning on June 22, 2009, importers of food products that contain small amounts of meat or poultry will not be granted an import permit by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) unless a determination is first made by FSIS that the meat, poultry, or egg product ingredient was prepared under specific conditions that will ensure that these ingredients are not adulterated. Once the determination has been made, food products that contain only a small amount of a meat, poultry, or egg product ingredient are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of FSIS and are then subject to the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.” CBP echoes above clarification: “USDA import permit will now be required for FSIS-exempted food products containing…
