Upload
bacabacabaca
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
1/16
American Petroleum InstituteInternational Trade & Customs Conference
March 27-29, 2011
Houston, Texas
Bill Methenitis
214-969-8585
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
2/16
Customs UpdatePage 2
Administrative andRegulatory Updates
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
3/16
Customs UpdatePage 3
Administrative and Regulatory Updates
Quarterly HMF payments and refund requests may nowbe filed electronically via pay.gov
CBP withdraws Notice of Proposed Interpretation of the
Expression Sold for Exportation in the United States
CBP withdraws Proposed Rule regarding Drawback ofInternal Revenue Excise Tax
Port of Las Angeles-Long Beach Drawback Center Closes Chicago, Houston, New York and San Francisco remain
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
4/16
Customs UpdatePage 4
Administrative and Regulatory Updates
CBP Attempts to Preclude Prior Disclosure ProtectionBased on CF 28/29 CBP clarifies that CF28 is generally not appropriate to commence
an investigation while CF29 can be an appropriatecommencement document
Proposed Changes to Foreign Trade Zone Regulations Manufacturing and processing replaced with production
New notification procedure for capacity increase
New sections on public utilities and uniform treatment
Conflicts of interest restrictions
Penalties, fines and prior disclosures
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
5/16
Customs UpdatePage 5
Administrative and Regulatory UpdatesPending Events
NAFTA Country of Origin Rules Treasury and CBP have decided not proceed with proposal
regarding uniform rules of origin for all trade
They will adopt certain proposed amendments to part 102applicable to pipe fittings and flanges among other items
HQ Changes Course on Transfer Pricing Adjustments Current authority suggests making retroactive adjustments is
incompatible with transaction value
A number of companies do it anyway, taking the position that their
pricing is formula based, and report changes through reconciliation HQ anticipates revoking prior rulings and liberalizing position,
presumably to allow transfer pricing adjustments based onobjective factors, but actual text is not yet available
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
6/16
Customs UpdatePage 6
Case Law Updates
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
7/16
Customs UpdatePage 7
United States v. UPS686 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl Trade 2010)
CBP attempting to fine UPS under the Brokers Statute forrepeated misclassifications
Federal Circuit remanded the case to CIT in 2009
because CBP failed to consider all 10 factors in thestatute
CIT entered judgment for UPS holding that CBP had not
established that monetary penalties were imposed inaccordance with the law
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
8/16
Customs UpdatePage 8
United States v. Tip Top Pants2010 Ct. Intl. Trade Lexis 5
CBP alleged Tip Top made false NAFTA claims after TipTop failed to respond to CF28 or CF29
CBP filed action in CIT to recover penalties from Tip Topand its CEO
CIT rejected claim against Tip Top as a matter of law forfailure to respond in writing to Tip Tops earlier petition.
CBP did issue an amended penalty notice after receivingthe petition, but this was insufficient to satisfy procedural
due process requirements CIT dismissed claim against CEO for failure to state a
claim
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
9/16
Customs UpdatePage 9
United States v. Pressman-Gutman721 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl Trade 2010)
CBP claimed Pressman failed to redeliver merchandise
and sought damages from Pressman and its surety
CIT rejected claim because CBPs demand for redelivery
was untimely. Demand for redelivery is to be made within30 days after CBP receives a requested sample.
CIT based their decision not only on regulations but alsoon established agency practice (evidenced in rulings)
In this case, CBP did not forget the deadline, but insteadsent an additional CF28 saying the sample was sent to
the lab for analysis. Conditional release period extended90 days pending lab analysis.
CIT required Pressman to pay partial attorneys fees tosurety pursuant to indemnification clause
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
10/16
Customs UpdatePage 10
United States v. Callinish Ltd.Slip Op. 10-124 (Ct. Intl Trade 2010)
CBP filed action related to the smuggling of eveningprimrose oil which was banned by FDA
Callinish failed to appear and CBP moved for default
judgement in an amount equal to domestic value ofmerchandise, which CBP claimed to be $17,734,926.
CIT denied judgment by default because CBP failed to
provide any basis in its pleadings of the domestic value ofthe merchandise
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
11/16
Customs UpdatePage 11
Horizon Lines, LLC v. United States626 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Clarified when ship repairs are dutiable pursuant to 19USC 1455(a)
Entry guides which direct containers into ships hold were
replaced due to new design features
Key factor in courts decision was that original guides werein full proper working order
Whether work is a non-dutiable modification or dutiablerepair is factual inquiry on a case-by-case basis
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
12/16
Customs UpdatePage 12
Outer Circle Prods. V. United States590 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Revd602 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (Ct. Intl Trade 2009)
Classification dispute of soft sided bottle cases eonomine (19.3%) or case law precedent (3.4%).
CIT held that eo nomine provision in 4202 applied,distinguished facts in precedential case (SGI case). 4202specifically states that it applies to bottle cases.
CAFC reversed CIT relying on prior SGI case use ofejusdem generis (of the same kind) to determine 4202did not contemplate containers for food and beveragesuch as those at issue in this case. A common aspect of
the exemplars in 4202, including bottle cases, is thatthey do not carry food or beverages.
HTS was later amended to include insulated food orbeverage bags in eo nomine provision.
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
13/16
Customs UpdatePage 13
Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States594 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir 2010)
Totes claimed violation of the Fifth Amendment right toEqual Protection because mens gloves are subject to
higher tariff rates than gloves for other persons
Government challenged claim on political questiondoctrine, standing and failure to properly plead the claim
CAFC affirmed CITs dismissal and held that Totes was
required to allege sufficient facts to establishgovernmental purpose for discrimination and not simply adisparate impact on men who purchase mens gloves
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
14/16
Customs UpdatePage 14
Norman G. Jenson, Inc. v. United StatesSlip Op. 11-15 (Ct. Intl Trade 2011)
Broker filed 308 protests on behalf of importers in February
2007
More than 2 years after filing protests broker was unable toascertain status after communicating with CBP and filed suit in
April 2010 seeking a court order for CBP to rule on the protests
CIT held that because broker had the ability to seekaccelerated disposition, CIT lacked jurisdiction to order CBP torule on the outstanding protests
Essentially means CBP can sit on a protest indefinitely ifaccelerated disposition procedures are not utilized
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
15/16
Customs UpdatePage 15
World CustomsOrganization Activity
7/28/2019 Administrative and Regulatory Updates Bill Methenitis
16/16
Customs UpdatePage 16
Technical Committee on Customs Valuation(pending approval by WCO Council in June 2011)
Commentary 23.1 Provides guidance on using transfer pricing studies to support
transaction value under the circumstances of sale test
While not conclusive, transfer pricing studies should be considered
Commentary 24.1 Clarifies that indirect assists are dutiable Example: importer provides a mold to Company A, who produces
a part purchased by Company B. Company B sells the finishedproduct to the importer. The importer must include the value of the
mold as an addition to value