Oct. 3, 2011 6:30 PM - FASHION, BEAUTY AND STATUS

Come join me this Monday, Oct. 3, 2011 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm for

FASHION, BEAUTY AND STATUS: 1 YEAR ON THE FRONT LINES IN CHINA’S LUXURY AND APPAREL MARKETS

When: Monday, October 3, 2011
Time: 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Location: Katie Murphy Amphitheater, Fred Pomerantz “D” Building, Fashion Institute of Technology, Seventh Avenue at 27th Street, New York City

China is now the number one market in the world for apparel and accessories and is also the world's largest market for a wide-array of other luxury and premium products. Renowned China expert Michael Zakkour, Principal of Technomic Asia, a consulting firm, will take you on a fascinating journey into the world of Chinese fashion, apparel, accessories and luxury products, detailing a year-long study of what the consumers want, who is selling it to them, and how they do it.

Topics will include:

* The China apparel and accessory market (market size and scope, current trends, business opportunities and hurdles, case studies, how to get started or expand in China)
* China’s appetite for fragrances and body care products not made in China
* A comprehensive look at the Chinese consumer (demographics, spending habits, what they want and what companies can deliver)
* What the next 1-5 years will bring to China and why winning there is crucial for the survival of commercial pursuits

Also speaking will be Professor Mark Greiz, Fashion Institute of Technology, and Chief Consultant, MG Consulting.

Prof. Lawrence Delson, Fashion Institute of Technology and New York University and President, Delson International Inc., will be moderating the session.

For more information click here.

Hope to see you there!

OWIT-NY’s Annual Membership Appreciation and Networking Night This Monday

Organization of Women in International Trade - New York Chapter

Come join me for OWIT-NY’s Annual Membership Appreciation and Networking Night!

You will receive a FREE drink if you sign up or renew your OWIT-NY membership on or before the big event!

Date: Monday, September 26, 2011
Time: Networking and refreshments at 6:00pm
Location: This event will be held at the Bryant Park Grill roof terrace located on 42nd street between 5th and 6th Avenues.

Walk in the main entrance, go straight to the back of the bar and proceed up the stairs. In case of inclement weather, we will move inside.

Look for the OWIT membership table with the turquoise, white and silver colored balloons!

Cost: FREE, with a cash bar

For more information, click here.

Hope to see you there!

It’s Exam Time – Cargo Exam Time That Is…

CES is a privately operated facility at which imported merchandise - identified by Customs for physical examination - is made available to Customs inspectors for that purpose.

I recently attended a program put on by the Long Island Import Export Association that had to do with Central Exam Sites (CES) and US Customs inspections.

The speakers, which included those from US Customs as well as those from local CES facilities, gave an overview of the CES exam process here at our local New York/Newark area ports. Non-intrusive inspections (NII – think VACIS* Exam), are currently done at the marine terminal, e.g., on-site at APM, PNCT, Maher, Red Hook, Global and NYCT terminals.

For intrusive exams however, Customs has consolidated its ports for examination by type of exam so that there are 2 ports each for Enforcement (Salson and East Coast) and Commercial (H&M and Railhead) related activity, 2 for Agricultural related activity, 1 for Outbound Cargo related activity, and an additional port at Perth Amboy in New Jersey.

Customs’ goal is to have all exams performed in as few as possible locations. It claims that the advantage of this is that it will improve the efficiency of the exam process. In addition, it intends to make CES facilities designated Automated Manifest System (AMS) service centers. In so doing, it would allow for the real-time release of cargo, essentially providing for the “electronic” movement of cargo so that it can be released immediately after the conclusion of the exam without the lag in time for the inspecting officer to return to Customs offices to input the release in the system.

Starting January 1, 2012, Customs anticipates that AMS capabilities will be up and running at CES facilities. Therefore, contacting the customer service line at the CES itself to check on the status of the exam is recommended for the quickest possible update about the cargo.

CES notifies Customs ahead of time about the location and exam-preparedness of cargoes within its facility, and Customs uses this data to determine what manpower will be needed for the inspection(s).

From the CES perspective, their goal, with respect to Customs, is to arrange the merchandise for the most expeditious exam possible. This means that where a “tailgate” exam is involved, the CES has the truck open at the back and ready for inspection when Customs is available to conduct the exam. Where a “full strip” exam is necessitated, the CES will unload and stage the goods for Customs to examine it.

As for the importer, CES facilities have a goal for the exam to be as expeditious as possible so that the cargo can be released for entry.

Where an agricultural or contraband exam is being conducted, Customs notifies the CES directly, who arranges to pick up the cargo from the terminal to its facility. The CES custodial bond covers cargo moving from the terminal to the CES.

For a compliance exam (i.e., random invoice/packing list check), the broker is contacted by Customs about the commercial exam and it is the broker that contacts the CES. Once notification has been received about the exam, CES has 24-48 hours to pick up the container.

Good news for CTPAT members – members get “front of the line” privileges in the case of CES exams, meaning their containers are examined first.

Why was the CES program developed in the first place?

Well, back in the early 1990s, there was a significant increase in the volume of merchandise imported into the United States stimulating an increase in the number of Container Freight Stations (CFS), bonded warehouses, truck and rail terminals, and other facilities which receive and hold imported cargo for purposes of examination and clearance by Customs. As a result of this increase, some examination facilities had become antiquated, unable to support the quantity of exams, or technological advances in equipment available for Customs examinations.

Often times, multiple facilities were not in close proximity to each other within a given port of entry, requiring Customs inspectors to spend a greater proportion of their time traveling from one location to another in order to perform cargo examinations necessary to ensure compliance with the law.

These factors had a negative effect on Customs productivity, complicated Customs efforts to properly allocate personnel to meet its workload, and had a corresponding negative effect on Customs ability to render efficient clearance and related services to the importing community.

For more information on the history of CES, click here.

* VACIS Exam: Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems (VACIS) is a gamma ray imaging system, that uses radiographic images to help Customs inspectors examine the contents of trucks, containers, cargo, and passenger vehicles for hidden compartments containing contraband. The system was developed as a joint project between the U.S. Customs Service, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Department of Defense.

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

Import Restraints and Their Economic Impact

Today the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) released its Publication #4253 entitled, “The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restraints.”

The USITC is self-described as “an independent, quasi-judicial Federal agency with broad investigative responsibilities on matters of trade. The agency investigates the effects of dumped and subsidized imports on domestic industries and conducts global safeguard investigations. The Commission also adjudicates cases involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights. Through such proceedings, the agency facilitates a rules-based international trading system. The Commission also serves as a Federal resource where trade data and other trade policy-related information are gathered and analyzed. The information and analysis are provided to the President, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and Congress to facilitate the development of sound and informed U.S. trade policy.”

In this publication, USITC shares its findings regarding the economic effect on sectors subject to weighty restraints, such as, not surprisingly, that of textiles and apparel, canned tuna, and, to my surprise (call me naïve), ethanol.

Here are some of its findings:

Textiles and apparel
The Commission estimates that liberalizing import restraints in textiles and apparel would increase welfare by $514 million. Liberalization would reduce output and employment in this sector by 9–10 percent, which would magnify the already substantial declines projected to occur without liberalization. Import liberalization would also eliminate exports of U.S. goods that are stimulated by preferential rules of origin. This change would lead to large declines in exports of U.S. products such as thread, yarn, fabric, and cut pieces of fabric to be sewn into clothing.

Canned tuna
Ending import restraints in canned tuna would increase welfare by $16 million. Imports of canned tuna would increase by 20 percent, and output would decline by 8 percent. Employment in the broader canned fish industry would fall by 7 percent.

Ethanol (ethyl alcohol)
Because of rapidly increasing quantities of ethanol mandated by the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, both U.S. ethanol production and U.S. imports of ethanol are projected to rise markedly by 2015. The projected higher import quantities and the continued moderate restrictiveness of ethanol restraints combine to make these restraints the most costly (in welfare terms) among all sectors considered. The Commission estimates that liberalizing ethanol import restraints would increase welfare by $1.5 billion and increase imports by 45 percent in 2015. Although liberalization would reduce the domestic industry’s output and employment from their projected 2015 levels by 4–5 percent, these changes are minor considering that the ethanol industry employment and output are both projected to more than double between 2005 and 2015, with or without liberalization.

The USITC report goes on to discuss U.S. and global supply chains, and more specifically about how the global restructuring of production has led to faster growth in trade, new benefits from trade, and new patterns of trade.

It further gives an in-depth analysis of the key elements of global supply chains, together with the major economic forces driving their development, which include improved international logistics, lower trade and transport costs, technological change, and international cost differences.

For a copy of the publication, click here.

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

Toxic Purses II – A Response to Those Who Have Written to Me With Questions

First of all, I would like to say, hello! Many of you have written making reference to a particular designer’s handbag/luggage products, and I have to admit that I not only share your interest in her designs but that she is actually my favorite designer.

That being said, I am pleased to report that these same warning labels have not been on my apparel purchases because they were not applicable to apparel. I mention this because I want you to understand that labels about products are specific to that type of article and are not necessarily a reflection across all product lines of a brand.

A warning label on a product also does not mean that all types of that product pose some “risk” and in the case of handbags, that will largely not be the situation. In terms of whether or not you want to keep or return your bag, that is an individual question that I cannot answer for you. After all, if the warning label is going to cause you to worry about an impending illness – whether or not it is true that one would result – then you probably don’t want to be preoccupied about something when you could just return it to the store.

On the other hand, when you know more about why the bag was subject to the label in the first place and factor in the frequency of your usage of the bag, you may not be worried about keeping it at all.

As I mentioned in my Toxic Purses? article, the label is a result of a law out of the State of California (CA) called Proposition 65.

California’s Prop 65 in its simplest terms requires a label where a product contains a chemical compound that exceeds what CA calls the “Safe Harbor Level.” Safe Harbor determinations are based on a person’s exposure to a chemical, assuming daily exposure at that level (not that CA has explained what type of daily usage would equate to the level of exposure that would warrant the label). In the case of a purse, that is likely to be daily exposure as compared to a piece of luggage which more typically has sporadic use.

Prop 65 requires businesses to warn people about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they make where that chemical is both (1) known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and (2) is listed on the “Prop 65 List.”

Here in the U.S. we have both federal, i.e., nationwide, laws as well as state law. I can tell you from counseling importer clients that ship products to retail stores located CA that it can seem like one is “importing” into CA due to all of the state-specific consumer product laws governing products sold within the state.

CA has a complex set of consumer product safety laws which, in large part, simply do not exist in other states. It’s arguable however, that without guidelines on product usage and exposure levels, they are useless.

So why is this label which is only required in CA ending up on products sold in the UK? Pure economics.

It is more cost effective to label merchandise at the production level, i.e., at the factory, so that it is compliant across all potential retail markets than to either forego a sale due to a lack of labeling, or cause a lag in sales time due to a need to relabel.

Therefore, some importers prefer to undergo testing and labeling overseas at the outset to both save money and deter potential future barriers to international trade.

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com