Customs and International Trade Law Blog : International Trade Lawyer & Attorney : Becker & Poliakoff Law Firm : Customs Law, Border Protection

Provide your comments below or contact me at or 954 270-1864.

Peter Quinter, Partner, Customs and International Trade Department

pquinter@becker-poliakoff.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission  (CPSC) officers will target more imported merchandise for safety risk assessments using information filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection by importers or their customs brokers. The CPSC is an independent health and safety regulatory agency that is responsible for protecting the American public from unreasonable risks of injury and death from about 15,000 types of consumer products. Since the passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008, CPSC increased the number of staff co-located with U.S. Customs at U.S. ports of entry.  Recently, U.S. Customs Commissioner Alan Bersin and CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum signed a memorandum of understanding to create an Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CTAC). 

CTAC is the culmination of President Obama's Food Safety Working Group  focused on (1) prevention, (2) surveillance, and (3) responding to the attempted importation into the United States of unsafe products.  The authority of CPSC officers is modeled after the authority and actions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). 

CPSC will soon issue its own Detention Notices, rather than having U.S. Customs do it, for imported cargo that is suspected of being unsafe.  CPSC will not only target and detain toys, games, and other children's' products, but also products previously screened only the FDA - food, cosmetic, medical devices, and dietary supplements. 

The $600,000 penalty that Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn. has agreed to pay to CPSC for allegedly violating the federal lead paint ban on toys is merely a prelude to the type of civil penalties to be assessed against importers for attempting to import and sell unsafe products.

Is the CPSC doing enough to keep unsafe products out of the United States, or being too aggressive and bureaucratic? Sound off with a comment below. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am attending the Spring Conference of Consulegis in the city of Funchal, on the beautiful island of Madeira, Portugal.  Consulegis is one of of the world's largest professional networks of international law firms.  Clients benefit by our ready access to 1,600 lawyers in 42 countries in 150 cities. My law firm has been a member for 10 years.    

The specialist groups of Consulegis include: (1) cross-border litigation and arbitration, (2) intellectual property rights, (3) taxes, (4) debt collection, and, of course, (5) customs and international trade law, for which I am the Chair.  

For those of you who enjoy using Facebook, Consulegis has a new page as of today! Click here to join. Our recent growth in law firm membership has been in Asia, especially China. While it can be challenging to find a dependable law firm in, for example, China, to assist a European or American company, the Consulegis network makes it easy.  

Through regular attendance at Consulegis meetings over many years, strong and personal relationships with senior partners at member law firms around the world have already been developed, so it's not like just finding a law firm on the Internet or getting referred to a stranger. Some of my successes in cooperating with overseas law firms include registering and enforcing a trademark in China, knowing the anti-dumping laws in Mexico, arbitrating a case in Prague, and collecting on a judgment in Germany.  

For any questions about solving legal problems around the world, or about Consulegis generally, feel free to contact me.

Peter Quinter, Partner in Charge, Customs and International Trade Department, Miami, USA

pquinter@becker-poliakoff.com or (954) 270-1864.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The annual conference of the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA) just concluded in San Antonio, Texas. Several prominent speakers from U.S. Customs, the Federal Maritime Commission, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Industry and Security, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Transportation Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security discussed new policies and procedures that every customs broker and international freight forwarder should use to serve their import and export clients.

Deputy Commissioner for U.S. Customs, David Aguilar, used a new talking point in his repeated use of the phrase "protect the American way of life" which apparently has replaced "protect the border" in his description of the mission of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  U.S. Customs Senior Attorney Susan Terranova stated that in 2009, Customs had issued over 500 penalties against exporters and freight forwarders for failing to file timely or accurately complete Automated Export System (AES) filings. Each penalty was issued in the amount of $10,000.

Marc Rossi, Branch Chief, Certified Cargo Screening Program, Air Cargo Division, TSA, stated that there are 98 foreign flagged airlines that fly into the United States, over 4,000 indirect air carriers (IACs), 52 independent cargo screening facilities, and only 403 IACs certified by the TSA as Certified Cargo Screening Facilities (CCSF), in preparation for the August 1, 2010 100% screening of air cargo aboard passenger aircraft in the United States.  More information about the implementation of the 100% screening rule is available at www.tsa.gov/ccsp. 

Along with Brandon Fried, Director, Air Forwarders Association, I lectured at the NCBFAA Conference about Export Compliance for Freight Forwarders.  The focus of my presentation was on exactly how to mitigate penalties once a Proposed Charging Letter, Pre-Penalty Notice, or Notice of Proposed Penalty has been issued by BIS, OFAC, or TSA.  The Power Point presentation is available only upon request.

See you at next year's NCBFAA Conference at the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort and Spa near Phoenix, Arizona.

Please contact me at pquinter@becker-poliakoff.com or (954) 270-1864.

Peter Quinter, Partner, Customs and International Trade Department, Miami, Florida

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For any importer of commercial cargo into the United States, there are numerous U.S. Customs requirements to consider such as declaring the correct tariff classification, customs valuation, and country of origin.  Sometimes, an importer (or its customs broker) makes a mistake. If the mistake is not corrected by the importer timely with U.S. Customs, the mistake may result in a fraud penalty by U.S. Customs against the importer.  We're talking about a lot of money.

Under 19 U.S.C. 1592, that penalty amount may be equal to the total value of the imported merchandise.  Fortunately, U.S. Customs has a "prior disclosure" procedure set forth at 19 CFR 162.74 for importers to advise U.S. Customs of a mistake before U.S. Customs learns of it and initiates its own investigation.

Importers thinking of making a Prior Disclosure to U.S. Customs should carefully consider a Federal Register Notice by U.S. Customs issued on October 21, 2009 entitled "Use of Sampling Methods and Offsetting of Overpayment and Over-Declarations in CBP Audit Procedures; Sampling Under Prior Disclosure"  Although not yet a Final Rule, it does affect how importers should calculate lost revenue in making a prior disclosure. Moreover, it affects how U.S. Customs will calculate lost revenue and monetary penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592. 

The propose regulation would explicitly provide "for the use of sampling methods in audits conducted by CBP under 19 U.S.C. 1509." A new subsection 162.74(j) "Prior Disclosure Using Sampling" would be added to the U.S. Customs Regulations. That regulation specifically would state that "A private party may use statistical sampling to 'disclose the circumstances of a violation' and for calculation of lost duties, taxes, and fees for purposes of a prior disclosure." 

The comment period for this proposed regulation ended on December 21, 2009, and a Final Rule is soon to be issued by U.S. Customs.  I look forward to U.S. Customs implementing the new regulations.

For any questions about filing a Prior Disclosure or responding to a 19 U.S.C. 1592 penalty, contact me at pquinter@becker-poliakoff.com or (954) 270-1864.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Air and ocean carriers often unintentionally transport aliens into the United States who do not have a valid passport and/or an unexpired visa.  Carriers receive a fine from U.S. Customs and Border Protection of $3,000 for every such alien illegally transported.  Carriers get an automatic reduction of 50% of the fine by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with U.S. Customs.  Carriers must obtain and submit a newly revised MOU to U.S. Customs on April 23, 2010. 

On February 22, 2010, U.S. Customs issued a General Notice that all air and ocean carriers which had signed an MOU with either the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service or U.S. Customs will no longer be effective. Only by submitting a new Fines Mitigation MOU countersigned by U.S. Customs Headquarters may fines be automatically reduced.  Carriers need to prepare now to comply with the many new changes in the MOU.

The new MOU has many changes, but the essential paragraph 3.10 still provides:

The Carrier shall maintain a reasonable level of security designed to prevent passengers from circumventing any Carrier document checks.  The Carrier shall also maintin an adequate level of security designed to prevent stowaways from boarding the Carrier's aircraft or vessel.

Without the new MOU, fines will be issued against the carrier by U.S. Customs for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1323.   Reduction of the fine greater than 50% may be obtained by the carrier when a violation occurs by establishing that further mitigating or extenuating circumstances exited at the time of the violation that warrant the relief sought.  To do so, the carrier should carefully follow the guidelines set forth at 8 CFR Part 280.

In Florida , the U.S. Coast Guard has recently issued a directive notifying all carriers that every vessel arriving at port from Haiti will be subject to a boarding and examination.  As a result, the number of discovered stoways has increased dramatically, and fines are being issued to carriers.  

Carriers may contact me at pquinter@becker-poliakoff.com  or U.S. Customs Headquarters  to obtain a copy of the new MOU.

Peter Quinter, Partner, Customs and International Trade Department (954) 270-1864

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In one of the most important recent decisions, the U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed a case filed against the CEO of his importing company that had made false statements to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the entry documents.  This Court decision has significant implications for every owner, officer, and manager of any company involved in importing merchandise into the United States.

The chronology of the case is somewhat familiar.  In 2002, Tip Top Pants, Inc., imported from Mexico 954 dozen men's pants, and claimed NAFTA duty free treatment.  Customs issued a Request for Information (CBP form 28), and then a Notice of Action (CBP Form 29) denying the NAFTA claim.  Customs then issued a Pre-Penalty Notice against both Tip Top Pants and its CEO, Mr. Nigri, alleging negligence, and assessing a penalty of $55,000.  Tip Top filed a response to the Pre-Penalty Notice.  Customs then issued a final Penalty Notice. Tip Top Pants filed with Customs another petition seeking cancellation or mitigation of the penalty.  Customs never responded to that Petition filed by Tip Top Pant's attorney. 

Even though the disputed customs duties were subsequently paid by Tip Top Pants, Customs sued both Tip Top Pants, Inc. and its Chairman and CEO, Mr. Saad Nigri, for violating 19 U.S.C. 1592, by allegedly making material false statements or acts, or material omissions, in connection with the entry of the men's pants from Mexico.

The Court took the unusual action of dismissing Mr. Nigri as a defendant in the case for two reasons.  The first reason is that Customs failed to respond to Tip Top Pant's Petition, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1592(b)(2).  The second reason is that the Complaint filed with the Court by Customs did not specifically allege that Mr. Nigri personally committed any act or omission in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1592. As the Court stated, "[T]he complaint does not allege that Nigri did, or failed to do, anything whatsoever." So, even if Tip Top Pants was negligent, its negligence could not be imputed to Mr. Nigri just because he was CEO of the company when the negligence occurred. 

In a sentence that is certain to be cited by customs attorneys in petitions and court briefs, Judge Stanceu stated: 

The [Priority Products] case does not hold that a party's serving as an officer of a corporation at the time the corporation imports merchandise is, by itself, sufficient to establish that officer's liability for acts committed by the corporation that are found to be in violation of Section 592.

The Court then issued an Order dismissing all claims by Customs against Mr. Nigri, personally. 

A future blog post will let you know what happened with the negligence penalty case against Tip Top Pants, Inc.

Peter Quinter, Partner, Customs and International Trade Department.

pquinter@becker-poliakoff.com or (954) 270-1864

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You may legally carry or mail any amount of money you want into or out of the United States, but if it is more than $10,000 at one time, you better first report it to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Otherwise, you risk U.S. Customs taking it from you, and never getting it back. Why?  Because your failure to report the international transportation of money is a violation of the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act.

All too often, I am contacted by a distraught American ciitizen or resident returning from a trip overseas, or a foreign visitor to the United States, who was unaware of the laws regarding currency reporting.  The person was asked by a U.S. Customs officer upon arrival at the international airport if he or she was carrying over $10,000. When the passenger honestly answer "yes", or the U.S. Customs officer believes the passenger may be lying about the amount of money being transported, the passenger and his or her luggage are examined.  If over $10,000 in monetary instruments, including travelers checks and U.S. or foreign money, is discovered, and the required form, FINCEN Form 105, has not been filed with U.S. Customs, all of the money is likely to be seized on the spot by U.S. Customs.

A formal Seizure Notice will eventualy be issued by U.S. Customs to the passenger, and the passenger may hire a customs attorney to pursue the administrative petition process to get the money (or most of it) back.  Proof of the legitimate source of the money and proof of the legitimate intended use of the money are required in communicating with Customs.  Eventually, after several months, Customs may return typically 90% of the money. 

It is an expensive mistake to not report to U.S. Customs when either carrying, mailing, or receiving over $10,000 internationally.  Please read U.S. Customs and Border Protection's "Currrency Reporting" flyer and look at the FINCEN Form 105 and its instructions before attempting to transport over $10,000.  There are no customs duties, taxes or other fees paid to U.S. Customs for the international transportation of the money; it is merely a reporting requirement to U.S. Customs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As of January 26, 2010, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will require that all importers comply with the Importer Security Filing (ISF), also popularly known as "10 +2" because of the 10 elements required to be provided to CBP relevant to the importer and 2 elements required to be provided to CBP relevant to the carrier.  CBP has announced that as of January 26, 2010, it will also begin to issue penalties of either $5,000 or $10,000 against importers who fail to comply with ISF; something CBP calls its "enforcement phase". Importers who self-file ISF, or their agents, must understand the changes, comply with them, and, when a penalty is issued by CBP, respond in writing to mitigate the penalty.

Fortunately, on January 28, 2010, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., the South Florida Chapter of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), is hosting a seminar entitled "ISF 10+2 Reality Sinks In...What's Next?"  To register or learn more about CSCMP, click on http://www.cscmp-sofl.org/events.shtml. The impressive panel includes customs brokers, importers, carriers, consultants, an attorney, and Richard DiNucci, Director, Secure Freight Initiative, CBP Headquarters. 

As you should know, the ISF is filed via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) or the Automated Manifest System (AMS), and it is always sent to the Automated Targeting System (ATS) for analysis and review by CBP officials.  Hence, it is obvious that CBP will use the ISF information to target, stop, and examine imported shipments.  Incorrectly or incompletely filing ISF will result in increased delays of imported shipments.  Moreover, CBP has announced that as of January 26, 2010, it will selectively penalize the more severely non-compliant importers, and will only more frequently issue such penalties over time.

On December 24, 2009, CBP amended the Interim Final Rule on November 25, 2008 entitled "Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements." See  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-30570.htm.  The amended rule clarified the ISF Bond Terms for all importers.  Knowing all aspects of this important new rule is necessary for the international trade community.  Click http://www.cscmp-sofl.org/events.shtml to register.  To learn more about the South Florida Chapter of the CSCMP, please contact a member of the Board of Directors at http://www.cscmp-sofl.org/board.shtml.

Happy New Year to all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The annual CBP Symposium, held at the D.C. Convention Center, Washington, D.C. from December 8-10, 2009, was the 10th year of this very successful event.  Over 850 attendees were initially greeted by outgoing Acting Commissioner Jay Ahern.  The Symposium agenda was a smorgasbord of information that was appropriate for anyone with a serious interest in international trade and logistics. Highlights included presentations from Assistant Commissioner Dan Baldwin, Office of International Trade, Rich DiNucci, Director, Secure Freight Initiative ("10+2"), Bob Swierupski, Director, National Commodity Specialist Division, and Brenda Smith, Executive Director, Trade Policy and Programs, about what the international trade community should expect in 2010 from CBP.  Special Presentations were made by Jeremy Baskin, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Domenic Veneziano, Director, Division of Import Operations and Policy, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. DiNucci's presentation on Importer Security Filing (ISF) stated that CBP has received from January 26, 2009 through December 6, 2009 3.65 million ISF filings from over 1,900 ISF filers representing 103,000 ISF importers. There is now a 95% acceptance rate on ISF filings.  As you know, the enforcement mode for ISF begins January 26, 2010, and there will be a $5,000 penalty issued by CBP for a violation per ISF transmission or $10,000 maximum per ISF filing.  Importers should be familiar with the ISF Interim Final Rule, the FAQ on ISF, and the Mitigation Guidelines issued by CBP.

Therese Randazzo, Director, IPR Policy and Programs Division, stated that CBP had issued over 1,000 fine notices, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1526(e), totaling $94 million against importers for attempting to import counterfeit merchandise.  However, only $2 million was collected from those importers.   Ms. Randazzo acknowledged that the U.S. Attorney's Offices are reluctant to pursue such cases because the importer has already been punished in that the merchandise was seized and forfeited, and adding a fine on top of that may be considered a violation of the "excessive fine" clause of the United States Constitution.  Charles Steuart, the new Intellectual Property Rights and Restricted Branch Chief, stated that CBP had  "targeting inefficiencies because of  lack of information of the international supply chain from trademark and copyright holders" who have recorded their trademarks, trade names, and copyrights with CBP.

Mr. Swierupski stated that his office had issued 6,821 Rulings pursuant to 19 CFR Part 177 in FY 2009, that Rulings from his New York office are issued within 30 days and those from CBP HQ are issued within 90 days.  Myles Harmon, Director, Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division, reminded persons submitting Ruling Requests to do so using CBP's new e-Rulings system, however, if a physical sample is submitted to CBP, the Ruling must still be made by paper, and not through the e-Rulings system. CBP has issued about 160,000 rulings available on CROSS.  Advance Ruling Requests are still the best method of predicting proper classification, valuation, country of origin, and other import requirements.

I look forward to next year's CBP Symposium. Be sure to sign up early as the event is always quickly sold out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 20, 2009, in Federal Court in Miami, Florida, Mr. James Garrido and the company he controlled, Kroy Corporation, pled guilty to charges related to their illegally smuggling into the United States certain restricted ozone-depleting substances, in violation of the Clean Air Act enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are ozone depleting substances and include CFC-22 which is otherwise known as R-22 or popularly known by its trademark name, Freon, owned by DuPont.  CFC-22 is a widely used refrigerant for residential heat pump and air conditioning systems.

In 1988, the United States ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. By ratifying the Protocol, the United States committed to a collaborative, international effort to regulate and phaseout ozone-depleting substances. The United States amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990 to include Title VI, Stratospheric Ozone Protection. The Clean Air Act established a schedule to phase out the production and importation of CFC-22.  Individual companies are licensed annually by the EPA to import specified maximum quantities of CFC-22.  By 2030, the CFC-22 will be completely phased out.

Neither Mr. Garrido nor Kroy Corporation were ever licensed by the EPA to import CFC-22.  They imported approximately 420,000 kilograms of CFC-22 valued at about $4 million over 2 years in violation of  18 U.S.C. section 545(smuggling).  They intentionally misdescribed the CFC-22 on documentation presented to U.S. Customs and Border Protection as another refrigerant, R-134A, which did not require any special license from the EPA. As stated in the press release by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida:  "Except for a small quantity of legal refrigerant strategically placed in front of the contraband, the shipment contained CFC-22 and were accompanied by false documentation."

The case was investigated by Special Agents from the Miami offices of the EPA and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Sentencing will take place on February 11, 2010.  Mr. Garrido could be sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, and a criminal fine of $250,000 for each of the three counts to which he pled guilty.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the overwhelmingly positive response to my new Customs and International Trade Blog, I am inviting each of you to the Customs and International Trade Department's Holiday Party, this Thursday, December 3, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at my Coral Gables, Florida, office. 

Where:  121 Alhambra Plaza, 10th Floor (parking provided in the building)

The following link contains a Map to Coral Gables Office.

Plenty of food and drink provided, so just bring your holiday cheer.

RSVP required to Jennifer Diaz at jdiaz@becker-poliakoff.com or 305-260-1053.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the airports, seaports, and other border crossings, stop, examine, detain, and seize merchandise from both travelers and commercial cargo importers and exporters.  The process of getting back your property can be a harrowing one fraught with bureaucratic delays.  There is, fortunately, a set of rules that U.S. Customs must follow, and knowing those rules will give you an advantage.

Customs officers may examine cargo to look for illegal drugs, counterfeit merchandise, merchandise from a country with which the U.S. has an embargo, food or medical devices not approved by the FDA, or motorcycles not approved by the EPA, just to name a few examples. 

While the cargo is being held by U.S. Customs, it is transferred to a Centralized Examination Station (CES) where the cargo is separated and intensively examined by Customs officers.  U.S. Customs has 35 days from the date of arrival of the cargo in the United States to detain the merchandise for examination.  See 19 CFR 151.16.  During that period of time, it is the obligation of U.S. Customs to advise the importer, its customs broker, and/or customs attorney with an explanation for the detention.  A written Detention Notice stating the specific reason for the detention should be issued by the U.S. Customs officer.

After 35 days, the Customs Regulations require that the cargo must be seized or released.   Unfortunately, this is too often ignored.  The problem is that U.S. Customs must rely upon other Federal agencies to give it advice whether a violation has occurred. For example, if a shipment of  motorcycles is imported from China, but Customs suspects that they may not satisfy the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) safety requirements, digital photographs and paperwork must be sent to EPA officials in Washington, D.C. for review and recommendation.  The communication is not directly from the front line U.S. Customs officer to the EPA attorney.  Instead, it will go through the chain of command which typically involves 5 sets of eyes and hands going up the chain and then down the chain.  35 days pass quickly with so many people handing off to each other.  Hence, despite the 35 day requirement, a determination to release or seize may not be made for 60 or more days after being detained by Customs.  Getting frustrated with or repeatedly calling a particular U.S. Customs officer may not be helpful as s/he may also be waiting for an answer from someone else.  Knowing who to call and when is the key to successfully getting cargo released.

The customs attorney hired to assist the importer needs to know the internal procedures of U.S. Customs as well as the laws and regulations it enforces to identify who and when to speak to a Customs officer or other U.S. Government official.  Getting involved early in the detention process is one of the best ways to assist Customs in identifying whether or not there is a violation, and avoiding a seizure or other negative action by U.S. Customs.   For example, if the product is a suspected counterfeit, showing an Import Specialist the license from Bluetooth or Apple could avoid a lengthy, expensive, and totally unnecessary seizure process with U.S. Customs.   Getting a Licensing Officer from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C. to speak directly with the U.S. Customs officer on the Anti-Terrorism Trade Enforcement Team (AT-TET) to clarify any suspected discrepancy in the terms of the export license could avoid an unnecessary seizure.

If a violation does occur, the merchandise will be seized by U.S. Customs. The merchandise is then transported by U.S. Customs from the CES to a Seized Property warehouse.  The merchandise will remain in the warehouse until it is authorized to be released by Customs, and the warehouse is paid its storage fees.

Once the merchandise is seized, the file is forwarded by the U.S. Customs officer to the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Office (FP&F).  The FP&F paralegal reviews the file and prepares a formal, written Seizure Notice. The Seizure Notice is mailed to the alleged violator.  My standard operating procedure is to notify FP&F of my representation of an importer or exporter whose goods have been seized by Customs so that the Seizure Notice is forwarded to me directly. The Seizure Notice will identify what and where the cargo was seized, as well as the legal basis for the seizure. See 19 CFR 162.31(b). 

Once a Seizure Notice is received, the "violator" is provided 30 days to file a Petition with Customs.  The Petition is the means by which the owner of the cargo may seek to persuade U.S. Customs to release the seized shipment.  The Petition may argue that a violation did not really occur, or that there was a violation, however, there were mitigating factors in favor of releasing the cargo.  The Petition should follow the guidelines set forth by U.S. Customs in 19 CFR Part 171.  U.S. Customs also published a very helpful handbook about seizure case processing.

Eventually, U.S. Customs will either grant and release the seized merchandise, or deny the Petition and not release the seized merchandise.  A Supplemental Petition or Offer in Compromise may then be submitted to U.S. Customs.

In summary, the administrative petition process with U.S. Customs can be a long one, however, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

1) Be as careful as possible to be sure imported merchandise complies with all relevant laws and regulations applicable to the particular product;

2) If U.S. Customs detains your products, contact a knowledgeable customs attorney or customs broker to actively demonstrate that there is no violation;  and

3) If U.S. Customs seizes your products, make sure your customs attorney knows the policies, procedures, and practices of U.S. Customs to pursue the release of the merchandise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When the International Olympic Committee selected Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, over Chicago, to host the Summer Olympics in 2016, I was surprised and disappointed.  When the media started to report that one of the factors that led the Committee members not to vote in favor of the United States was our security policy toward international visitors, I was intrigued. When I read that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had previously promised the Committee that the White House would set up a special office to oversee a host of federal agencies to make sure the customs and immigration process would be streamlined so athletes and other visitors would have no trouble getting to the games, then I realized something was seriously wrong.

A New York Times October 2, 2009 article entitled "Chicago's Loss: Is Passport Control to Blame?" stated the case well.  The CEO of the lobbying group U.S. Travel Association also stated on October 2, 2009 that we "need to change impressions of what the experience of travel to the U.S. is like for international visitors."  And he said that the very day after personally meeting with United States Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.  

I wondered about the impressions that foreign visitors have of clearing the international arrival areas of our nation's airports, including being processed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs).  The results were disturbing.

I randomly spoke to people I knew overseas who were frequent and experienced international travelers. They were Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans, Germans, Australians, and Colombians whom I asked for an honest assessment of their U.S. international entry experiences.  Many persons spoke of being selected for questioning by U.S. Customs personnel upon arrival in the United States, usually at an international airport such as New York's JFK, Los Angeles (LAX), or Miami International Airport (MIA).  Many had their baggage examined by CBP officers.   Although unpleasant, most persons did not seem to mind much even though they stated that the border security of the United States was a relatively poor experience compared to other countries.  Virtually everyone I spoke with had a story about a friend or colleague of theirs who was detained and questioned by CBP officers in the United States.  The result was suspicion, and even some hostility, toward the United States regarding its perceived unwelcoming attitude to business persons and vacationers coming to the United States.  Many of those person interviewed mentioned President Bush as the person to blame for their negative perspective.

Clearly, something needed to be done.  Fortunately, sometimes out of something bad comes something good. Within a week of the Olympics going to Rio instead of Chicago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1035, the "Travel Promotion Act of 2009,"  co-sponsored by U.S. Representatives William Delahunt (D-MA) and Roy Blunt (R-MO). The Act would create a public-private partnership to promote the United States as a premier travel destination, and better explain U.S. security policies to our overseas guests. The U.S. Senate already passed identical legislation also entitled the Travel Promotion Act of 2009  (S. 1023) earlier in September, so the Act should eventually become law. As stated explicitly in the Act, the primary purposes of the new organization would be "to identify, counter, and correct misperceptions regarding United States entry policies around the world."

Why does the United States need such an agency? What did we do wrong after 9/11 to have created such a bad impression around the world? In President Bush's National Strategy for Homeland Security issued October 5, 2007, he stated: 

"We have made our borders more secure and developed an effective system of layered defense by strengthening the screening of people and goods overseas and by tracking and disrupting the international travel of terrorists."

Whether "more secure" and "effective" is arguable, however, there certainly had been more aggressive screening of people both prior to their boarding aircraft overseas and upon arrival in the United States during President Bush's "War on Terror".

U.S. Customs has attempted to educate the international traveler by having useful information on its website entitled "Admission into the United States" and even a flow chart of the CBP Inspection Process.  From my own personal contacts, although certainly not any kind of scientifically proven study, I agree with the U.S. Travel Association that we lost the Olympics, in part, because of a perception (real or imagined) that our entry process is just not up to international standards of hospitality. 

While balancing the concepts of border security and facilitating trade is now an ongoing debate, I remain optimistic that the U.S. Congress, President Obama, and DHS Secretary Napolitano have already started to move the country in the right direction in re-evaluating our trade and border security policies and practices. For example, the phrase "War on Terror" is no longer in vogue.  I have personally recently heard both the U.S. Customs' Director of Field Operations for South Florida, Harold Woodward, and U.S. Customs'  Area Port Director for Tampa, Gary McClelland, talk about a renewed relationship with the international trade community to facilitate trade and travel.                                                                                                                                                                

My recommendations are:

(1) If an international traveler is selected, stopped, and questioned by CBP, preferably do it in the person's native language;

(2) With CBP's Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) that includes the Department of Justice's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (NLETS), U.S. Customs' Automated Targeting System (ATS), Border Crossing Information (BCI), and Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), all of which is provided in advance of the arrival of the airplane in the United States, questioning of passengers should be brief;

(3) anyone detained by CBP should have explained to him or her exactly why the person is being detained, and should be informed how to remedy any false or inaccurate information that may be in a U.S. Customs database; and

(4) invigorate the DHS's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to directly investigate and then remedy any shortcomings it identifies in the international arrivals process.

Finally, after a long international flight from somewhere such as China, it really is nice to hear a uniformed U.S. Customs officer say "Welcome to the United States."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is common for an importer to receive a CBP Form 28 (Request for Information) and then a CBP Form 29 (Notice of Action) for incorrectly classifying merchandise.  It is also relatively common for an importer to receive a Pre-Penalty Notice from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) alleging negligence, gross negligence, or fraud, and demanding tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in monetary penalties and additional duties.  Don't panic.

When a CBP 28 or CBP 29 is issued by an Import Specialist of Customs to an importer, it may ultimately result in the issuance of a fraud penalty in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1592.  If Customs alleges fraud, then the penalty will be equal to the total invoiced value of the shipments affected.  For example, if a shipment of clothing valued at $100,000 was misdescribed or misdeclared in some way to Customs, and a fraud penalty is issued, the penalty will $100,000.  If the penalty is not paid, the case is referred by Customs to the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue litigation against the importer.  Sometimes, Customs seeks to collect money by personally naming the officers, shareholders, and/or managers of the company as well.  That means joint and several liability, so even if the company is no longer in business or does not have the money to pay, the U.S. Department of Justice will seek the payment of the penalty from the persons involved.

Whenever a CBP 28 or 29 indicates that the importer is under "formal investigation", those magic works should not be ignored.  You can be pretty sure that the matter will result in a penalty being issued by Customs against the importer for some form of fraud.  Import fraud comes in all shapes and sizes.  It could be that the wrong tariff classification in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States was used by the importer to get a lower or zero duty rate, or avoid import quotas.  Another common violation is the importer incorrectly stating that the imported product qualifies for one of the multi-lateral free trade agreements such as DR-CAFTA (Dominican Republic- Central American Free Trade Agreement) or a bilateral free trade agreement such as the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Just as common is the violation whereby the importer accurately describes the merchandise and the country of origin, but greatly undervalues the merchandise to avoid Customs duties, excise taxes or other fees.

Procedurally, after the CBP 28s and CBP 29s have been issued, and the importer responds to each in writing, a Pre-Penalty Notice will be issued by Customs' Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures (FP&F) Office. The Notice is issued to the importer of record.  The Notice describes the violation, identifies the Customs entries involved, cites the laws and regulations allegedly violated, demands payment in full or provides the importer 30 days to file a Petition explaining why the violation did not occur or otherwise why the importer should not have to pay the penalty. 

The Petition is filed with the FP&F Office, and reviewed by the assigned Paralegal Specialist. Most likely, the Petition will also be reviewed by an Import Specialist at the port of entry who issued the CBP 28 and CBP 29.  In some situations, a Special Agent from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office may be involved, or legal counsel for Customs.  Customs often agrees to allow an in-person meeting to discuss the Pre-Penalty Notice. Be sure to consult Appendix B to Part 171 of the Customs Regulations to identify and list any mitigating factors which could reduce the amount of the monetary penalty.  Familiarity with the FP&F Handbook is another vital tool to attempt to persuade Customs to cancel, or at least reduce, the penalty against the importer.

Hopefully, with the help of expert, legal counsel knowledgeable and experienced in Customs law, the Petition will be reviewed, and Customs will not issue a penalty.  Customs sometimes changes the culpability of the wrongdoing from fraud to gross negligence, or from gross negligence to simple negligence.  The lower the level of culpability, the lower the amount of the penalty.

If the Petition after the Pre-Penalty Notice is not successful, Customs will state so in a responsive letter called a Penalty Notice. Then, the importer may file another Petition alleging some new legal arguments or supplement the facts.  Usually, at this stage, these cases are referred by the FP&F Office to Customs Headquarters in Washington, D.C., where an attorney in the Penalties Branch reviews the case, and writes the analytical decision.  That decision is forwarded to the FP&F office which then forwards it to the importer's legal representative.  Hopefully, Customs will agree that there was no fraud, and the case is over. The whole process usually takes many months, and can take even longer.

 In summary,

(1) A CBP 28 or CBP 29 almost always precede a penalty notice, so be careful when replying;

(2) Whenever you read or hear the words "formal investigation", promptly get legal counsel because a fraud penalty is coming;

(3) Remember that penalties may be issued against individuals as well as companies; and

(4) Do your homework before claiming the duty free treatment of DR-CAFTA, NAFTA, or other trade agreement on Customs entries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How often do you think U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have heard an importer say, “. . . but I didn’t tell the manufacturer to put that trademark on there”? Ignorance may be bliss, but CBP will not accept that excuse as an acceptable reason to allow counterfeit merchandise to enter into the United States, or even allow it to move in-transit through the United States. This, however, is the often heard explanation when an importer does not do its due diligence.

There are a few steps every importer should take prior to doing business with a new manufacturer or importing into the United States a new product.

A reputable manufacturer should, and ultimately will, provide a sample. Inspect the sample thoroughly. If it is an electronic item, you may want to go as far as taking it apart to make sure that the inner workings do not contain any trademarks or logos or copyrights which either you did not request or the manufacturer is not licensed to produce. If your sample is different than the merchandise shipped, then you can at least say to CBP, “This is not what I ordered. I have a sample of what I was supposed to receive," and the correspondence with the manufacturer to support your claim. Even if you do not  get your merchandise back from CBP, it is important to understand that you may use your due diligence as a mitigating factor if and when you are fined by CBP.  Fines are routinely issued by CBP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1526(e) and equal the Manufactured Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).  Companies which or persons who get such fines may get them reduced by filing a Petition.  Knowing the factors that CBP considers when reviewing the Petition is critical.

Licensing agreements (on paper) can be falsely produced by anyone with a computer and printer. Just because a manufacturer shows you what appears to be a license while attending a reputable tradeshow, does not mean it’s valid.

Just keep the following in mind. Ask for a copy of the licensing agreement, and don’t take a manufacturer’s word that they have a license, verify. Obtain references or work with reputable manufacturers. Don’t think that you’re just getting a great deal, because if it’s too good to be true, then it probably is!  Many trademark and copyright owners maintain websites which list the approved companies authorized to manufacture products with the protected trademarks or copyrights.

And lastly, don’t think that you won’t get caught. Remember, it’s CBP’s job is to protect both you and the economy.  Counterfeits are not limited to cheap handbags at the flea market, but auto parts and aircraft parts,  and many more items that you would not want to be substituted (think medicines).

If a hold, detention, or worse yet, a seizure by CBP occurs at any port in the United States, an importer should promptly contact a customs attorney to file a Petition to attempt to persuade CBP to release the seized merchandise.  Common trademark and copyright counterfeiting is for Bluetooth, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), and Tetris.  Petitions should contain specific information and attach certain types of documentation to convince CBP that it made an error in the initial seizure.  The Customs and International Trade Department attorneys of Becker & Poliakoff are very knowledgeable and experienced in these matters, and may assist companies with the process.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The past few days, I have been in Washington, D.C. meeting with several members of the U.S. House of Representatives to discuss issues of vital importance to the international trade community.  As part of the annual Government Affairs Conference (GAC) of the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA), I met with the highest level of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Maritime Commission, and spent an entire day on Capitol Hill.  The Representatives were interested in, and understood the importance of, international trade and the role of customs brokers and freight forwarders in that process.  We spent a lot of time talking about some of the details of the Trade Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 496) and the Senate version's Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2009 (S. 1631) which will hopefully re-balance the historical mission of U.S. Customs to regulate trade as much as it is to "secure the border".  We also discussed at length the Export Control Improvement Act (H.R. 3515).  The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 that recently passed the House. (H.R. 2749) and exempts customs brokers from the onerous civil penalty provisions (up to $250,000 for inadvertent violations and $500,000 for knowing violations by importers) will still need to go to conference between the House and Senate versions, so that also was high on our list of priorities.  Just because imported food is determined by the FDA to be adulterated or contaminated and is refused entry into the United States should not result in a penalty against the customs broker who likely never even had possession of or saw the food.

Separately, most interesting was meeting with the Trade Counsel of the House Committee on Ways and Means and Staff Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee who were actually drafting the language to include in the Customs Reauthorization Act. Much discussion centered around Customs' delays in issuing detention notices to importers, Customs officers issuing defective and incomplete notices, delays by Customs in issuing formal Seizure Notices to importers, and the amount of time it sometimes takes Customs in making decisions on Petitions filed by importers, brokers, and lawyers in seizure cases.

In meeting with Robert (Bob) Jacksta, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Field Operations, he stated that at this time U.S. Customs had 993 Import Specialists, and 21,000 CBP Officers (formerly called "Inspectors"). He stated there were 200 Importer Self-Assessment (ISA) members.  For C-TPAT, Mr. Jacksta stated there were about 9,400 certified members, which included 4,300 importers, 2,500 carriers, 811 customs brokers, , and 917 foreign manufacturers. Altogether, C-TPAT members comprised 51% of the value of imported merchandise into the United States.

Some very interesting statistics cited by Mr. Jacksta included a 4.6% marine cargo physical examination rate by Customs.  Also, the number of land border crossings by truckers with Mexico and Canada are down about 20% from a year ago.

I have noticed some new terminology recently used by both DHS and CBP officials. Both Daniel Baldwin, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade, and Kimberly Marsho, Director, Office of Trade Relations, used the phrase "management by account".  Mr. Baldwin announced the creation of an Import Product Safety Center located in Washington, D.C., and staffed by CBP and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) personnel.  Ms. Marsho stated that the annual Customs Symposium would take place December 8-10, 2009, in Washington, D.C. at the Convention Center, and that an announcement would appear on the CBP website "in a couple of weeks".

Richard DiNucci, Director, Secure Freight Initiative, Office of Field Operations, CBP, who is leading CBP's Importer Security Filing initiative, commonly known as"10+2" or "ISF", reported that the compliance rate for ISF Filing is now over 95%, and that enforcement (i.e. penalties or liquidated damage claims) against importers will be issued starting in January 2010.  Most errors are invalid HTS numbers or invalid country codes. 1/3 of the ISF filers are C-TPAT members.

Finally, Kevin Delli-Colli, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement with the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, discussed the benefits of filing a voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) with the BIS to avoid the $250,000 penalties assessed against companies and individuals who violate the export controls laws and Export Administration Regulations (EAR) of the United States.  BIS is aggressively pursuing investigations and penalties against companies, and individuals, who do not obtain a license when required, or violate the terms of a license.  BIS penalties are now more often being assessed against international freight forwarders for aiding or abetting the illegal export of merchandise.

In summary, the GAC was an informative and rewarding experience.  The Florida Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association (FCBF), led by President Cari Cossio, and other NCBFAA Chapters from around the country, represented the international trade community well to our Congressional representatives. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Whenever you cross the border of the United States, you are subject to a border search. Borders include international airports and seaports, in addition to land crossings with Mexico and Canada.  U.S. Customs has authority to search persons and things that cross the border  - your car, your private yacht, your private jet, your luggage, and yes, even your mobile phone, laptop, and iPod.     In an August 27, 2009 press release, United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano set forth some guidelines to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)and to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about searching electronic media devices. 

The new guidelines are considered vital to DHS's mission in "detecting information that poses a serious harm to the United States, including terrorist plans... or possession of child pornography and trademark or copyright infringement."  Interestingly, the press release stated: "Between October 1, 2008 and August 11, 2009, CBP encountered more than 221 million travelers at U.S. ports of entry.  Approximately 1,000 laptop searches were performed in these instances - of those, just 46 were in-depth."  The DHS website provides examples of when the searches of electronic media devices resulted in arrests of individuals transporting the devices.

Civil libertarians have long been concerned about U.S. Customs' authority to search electronic media, considering it a possible invasion of privacy.  As one commentor publicly said to Secretary Napolitano "You and your government are paranoid!"  Sen. Feingold (D-WI) stated during 2008 Congressional hearings on this issue: "When the Government looks through the contents of your laptop, is that just like looking through the contents of a suitcase, car trunk, or purse? Or does it raise dignity and privacty interests that are more akin to an invasive search of the person, such that some individualized suspicion should be required before the search is conducted?"

Section 5.1.2 of the U.S. Customs Directive No. 3340-049 issued on August 20, 2009 states "In the course of a border search, with or without individualized suspicion, a Customs officer may examine any electronic device and may review and analyze the information [contained therein]."  And what about if the information is perfectly legal, but confidential, perhaps containing medical information, or sensitive business information.  No worries, says the Directive, it will remain confidential by Customs, and the information will be destroyed within 5 days thereafter.  Customs says it will keep statistics of such searches.

The concept of a border search is that no probable cause, or any cause whatsoever, is needed by the Customs officer to stop and search persons or things at the border.  That has been the law of the land since this country was founded and U.S. Customs was created.  To allay any such concerns, and to educate international travelers, DHS took the unprecedented step of simultaneously issuing a "Privacy Impact Statement".  This is a remarkable document.  Moreover, the electronic media device search policy will be monitored by DHS's Office of Privacy which is led by Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan.

 I wrote about this issue in the Customs and International Trade Bar Association's Spring 2008 newsletter.   I was also extensively quoted in the September 2008 PC Today magazine article "entitled "Notebook Search and Seizure: What Can Happen & What You Can Do".    The concerns I expressed in those articles remain.  I am encouraged by Secretary Napolitano's and Acting Customs' Commissioner Jay Ahern's approaches to this sensitive issue, and hope that the DHS' Office of Privacy and Inspector General both vigorously scrutinize the actual implementation of this new Directive. 

P.S. I still wonder, what happened with the people and laptops for the approximately 1,000 laptop searches that Customs performed this past year, and what does it mean that a laptop is searched "in-depth"?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ever since the tragic events of 9/11, the sole focus of U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been anti-terrorism.   This is true, despite the rhetoric in more recent years that U.S. Customs serves the equally vital goals of anti-terrorism and facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.  The former priorities of collecting customs duties and fees, facilitating international trade, preventing illegal trade practices, and interdicting drugs and other contraband was shoved to the side in the name of protecting our homeland from terrorists.

Fortunately, the United States Congress, through the Senate Finance Committee led by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), on August 6, 2009, introduced a bill entitled "The Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2009." Senator Baucus said that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have not been focusing sufficient resources on their trade missions, “and this bill would direct them to do so.”

If the bill becomes law, and it should, because of both Democratic and Republic support,  it would refocus U.S. Customs on regulating international trade, a mission U.S. Customs has performed very well for over 200 years.   In summary, among other things, the law would:

1) Replace the Office of  Trade Relations with a new Trade Advocate, who would be the primary liaison between the public and U.S. Customs;

2) Create a Principal Deputy Commissioner, appointed by the President of the United States;

3) Consolidate the current Office of International Trade and the Office of International Affairs into a single Office of International Trade;

4) Make health and safety issues a top priority;

5) Make protection of intellectual property rights a top priority;

        a) allow trademark and copyright owners to simultaneously electronically register a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office and also record it with U.S. Customs;

        b) create a new National Intellectual Property Rights Center within the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; and

6) create enhanced benefits for importers, customs brokers, ocean carriers, and other participants in the U.S. Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT).

This legislation is long overdue, and I hope it will be supported by the international trade and transportation community of the United States.  For those who want to read all 400 sections of the bill, it is S. 1631.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Did you hear that Mexico replaced all 700 Customs Inspectors?  It did so because the Mexican Customs officers were considered corrupt, allowing undeclared merchandise (including drugs and weapons) to cross into and out of Mexico.  The replacement officers are allegedly specially trained to collect the tax revenues that the Mexican Government depends upon, and prevent undeclared merchandise from entering the country (i.e. smuggling).  Mexico depends upon collection of revenues by the Mexican Customs authorities much more than we do in the United States with the customs duties and fees collected by our U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers.  Most importantly, the new Mexican Customs officials are supposed to be specially selected and trained so they will not be susceptible to the same enticements that corrupted the former 700 Mexican Customs officials.  Mexican Government officials say not to worry about  the new Mexican Customs officials as over 70% of the new Mexican Customs officials are colleged educated, as opposed to just 10% for those who were fired.

Do you believe any of this nonsense?  This is not the first time that the Mexican Government has fired huge numbers of its Customs officials.  It happened before and it will likely happen again.  Mexican Customs officials need better salaries and better working conditions, not college degrees.

In contrast, if an international passenger or importer or exporter attempted to bribe a U.S. Customs officer, the chances are excellent that the U.S. Customs officer would promptly arrest or take other similar serious and immediate action.  That is not to say there are not any bad apples within U.S. Customs -  there always have been and always will be, just like any other large organization.  Just recently, a U.S. Customs officer pled guilty to stealing a laptop computer from an international passenger who landed at the Philadelphia International Airport.

We're not going to address the operational inefficiencies that exist within CBP in this post, but when it comes to integrity, my opinion is that CBP passes the test with flying colors.  CBP identifes its "Core Values" as Vigilance, Service, Integrity. As a former attorney with the United States Customs Service in Miami, I still prefer the former core values of "Honor, Tradition, Service."

U.S. Customs has long had its own Office of Internal Affairs. Plus, U.S. Customs is an agency within the huge U.S. Department of Homeland Security which has an Office of Inspector General.  U.S. Customs enjoys a positive worldwide reputation among Customs Administrations throughout the world.  Who knows, maybe it's because all U.S. Customs officials have at least college, and perhaps masters or doctorate degrees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link