AVVO Talk: I Ordered Bad Quality Shoes From Ebay - Need to Check Import / Customs Approval to Import These Products From China

Question Continued: I bought shoes from ebay from a US Seller, which is an American brand but the shoes are made in china.  The shoe’s quality is so bad, it smells like gasoline, and I don't think the products qualify to be sold in the USA.  Is there any way to check if the seller/company are legally importing these to the USA?  Do they need some type of approval from the US customs?  The shoes are for adults, size 10, and the seller says it’s made of synthetic faux-leathers but no label on the shoes confirm that.  The label says it's made in CHINA.  Thank you.

Deanna's Response:

Hi, 

Unfortunately, many of the laws related to importing extend to the party known as the "ultimate purchaser" of the goods, which would, in a case like yours, likely be the US seller from whom you purchased the shoes via E-bay (unless such seller is a retail store as opposed to an individual seller - in which case, a consumer like you would more likely be the ultimate purchaser). 

The import laws related to footwear would have required a conspicuous label disclosing certain information which it sounds like you cannot find. This being the case, you have the option to get the shoe tested in a lab in order to know what the product is chemically made of (since it is a synthetic shoe), and then where questionable results appear, you could go to your local consumer product safety agency for more assistance.

AFL-CIO Sought Removal of GSP Benefits on Bangladesh Five (5) Years Ago Due to Worker’s Rights Deficiencies

Five (5) years and several high-profiled tragedies later, GSP treatment of all goods of Bangladesh origin will be suspended, effective September 3, 2013.

GSP stands for the Generalized System of Preferences which allows for the duty-free entry of roughly 3,500 GSP eligible products.

The AFL-CIO exists to represent people who work.  Read their mission statement below.

In 2007, the GSP Subcommittee accepted for review a GSP country practice petition submitted by the AFL-CIO seeking the removal of GSP benefits for Bangladesh based on the country's non-compliance with the GSP statutory eligibility criteria related to worker rights.

The GSP Subcommittee held public hearings on the petition in October 2007, April 2009, and January 2012, and also invited public comments on the petition on several occasions.

In 2011, U.S. imports from Bangladesh under GSP totaled $26.3 million. A full list of U.S. imports from Bangladesh under GSP may be found in the www.regulations.gov in docket number  USTR-2012-0036-0001.

While the leading GSP imports from Bangladesh included tobacco products, sports equipment, china kitchenware, and plastic articles, by being a GSP beneficiary country, it also had duty-free treatment on a number of textile accessories and some women’s or girls wearing apparel.

After reviewing the most recently available information, including updated reports from the AFL-CIO, the GSP Subcommittee believed that the lack of progress by the government of Bangladesh in addressing worker rights issues in the country warranted consideration of possible withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of Bangladesh's trade benefits under GSP. 

By statute, i.e., law, however, such change in Bangladesh's trade benefits under GSP required the President to make a determination, which he finally did.

On June 27, 2013, by Proclamation, President Obama revoked Bangladesh’s privilege of receiving treatment as a beneficiary developing country GSP.

As stated in his Proclamation, the reason for the revocation was because Bangladesh “has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in [its] country."

The original petition and other information related to the review of Bangladesh are available for public viewing on www.regulations.gov in docket USTR-2012-0036.

For more information on GSP and GSP Eligible Products, click here.

AFL-CIO MISSION STATEMENT (as per its website)

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is an expression of the hopes and aspirations of the working people of America.

We resolve to fulfill the yearning of the human spirit for liberty, justice and community; to advance individual and associational freedom; to vanquish ­oppression, privation and cruelty in all their forms; and to join with all persons, of whatever nationality or faith, who cherish the cause of democracy and the call of solidarity, to grace the planet with these achievements.

We dedicate ourselves to improving the lives of working families, bringing fairness and dignity to the workplace and securing social equity in the Nation.

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

Keep up with me:

On Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/FashionCompliance 

On YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/fashioncompliance

On Twitter @fashcompliance  https://twitter.com/fashcompliance

How to Mark a Commercial Sample as a “SAMPLE”

Say you want to set up a carpet business and need carpet samples to show prospective buyers your range of colors.

 

 
Commercial samples become an issue for US Customs primarily under two (2) scenarios. 

The first is where an importer, because it is importing a product it does not intend to resell, seeks to avoid marking a product via use of one of the country of origin marking exceptions.

The second is where an importer seeks duty-free treatment of the merchandise being imported by classifying it as a commercial sample under a special provision in chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the US (HTSUS).

Chapter 98 of the HTSUS has a special provision regarding the duty-free entry of a commercial sample under HTSUS heading 9811.00.20 when use of the sample is for the purpose of soliciting purchase orders for foreign merchandise and the creation of demand for future orders.  Such treatment is afforded when the sample is

1.    Not valued over $1, OR

2.    Is marked, torn, perforated or otherwise treaded so that it is unsuitable for sale or for use otherwise than a sample.

Whereas not having the ”SAMPLE” marking may raise an issue by a US Customs border inspector, marking it “SAMPLE NOT FOR RESALE” eliminates any issue.  A best practice is to instruct your foreign vendor to mark the sample so as to minimize any ambiguities.

One way to mark these little guys would be as shown in the image below.

 

Again, such recommendation is being made in order to avoid issues that could arise due to an inspection of the sample. 

 

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

 

Keep up with me on Twitter @fashcompliance.

 

Responsible Supervision Over Employees of Customs Brokers

The Customs Brokers regulations under 19 CFR §111.28 provides for the exercise of responsible supervision by brokers over the transaction of customs business within such business entity or sole proprietorship.

Under the statute, 19 USC §1641(b)(4), responsible supervision and control means that degree of supervision and control necessary to ensure the proper transaction of the customs business of a broker, including actions necessary to ensure that an employee of a broker provides substantially the same quality of service in handling customs transactions that the broker is required to provide.

Factors US Customs looks at in order to gauge whether or not responsible supervision and control had been exercised by a broker lays in its evaluation of certain factors including:

1.      The training required of employees of the broker;

2.      the issuance of written instructions and guidelines to employees of the broker;

3.      the volume and type of business of the broker;

4.      the reject rate for the various customs transactions;

5.      the maintenance of current editions of the Customs Regulations,  the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and Customs issuances;

6.      the availability of an individually licensed broker for necessary consultation with employees of the broker;

7.      the frequency of supervisory visits of an individually licensed broker to another office of the broker that does not have a resident individually licensed broker;

8.      the frequency of audits and reviews by an individually licensed broker of the customs transactions handled by employees of the broker;

9.      the extent to which the individually licensed broker who qualifies the district permit is involved in the operation of the brokerage; and

10.   any circumstance which indicates that an individually licensed broker has a real interest in the operations of a broker.

These factors are required to be considered by US Customs when imposing a monetary penalty upon a broker for a lack of responsible supervision and control. [US v. UPS, 686 F. Supp.2d 1337 (2010)]

Therefore, it would be prudent to ensure that oversight of employees with respect to these factors remains high.

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

Importing Gray Market Goods – The Omega v. Costco Case

"Critical Implications of Costco v. Omega on the Gray Goods and the First Sale Doctrine" CLE Program is now available at lawline.com here

Lawline.com now has available a continuing legal education (CLE) course that I served as faculty on regarding a case that dealt with an importation of “gray market goods.” Specifically, it had to do with the Supreme Court’s December 2010 affirmance of the case heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals entitled, Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008). (For more information on gray market goods, see my Dec. 20, 2010 post)

To give a little background, Omega, a popular high end watch company, is the owner of a “Globe” watch design that is registered with the US Copyright Office. It also has its trademark registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Omega had a production of watches manufactured overseas that bore the Omega trademark and the copyprighted Globe design.

Costco thereafter purchased the foreign manufactured Omega watches bearing the copyright and trademark, and imported them into the United States for sale in its US stores at a price of $1,299, which was significantly less than Omega's US retail sales price of $1,995.

Costco did so however, without the authorization of Omega, which according to Omega, was in violation of the Copyright Act’s prohibition on unauthorized importations.

In its defense, Costco raised what is known under Copyright law (and not Customs law) as the “First Sale Doctrine.” This doctrine places a limitation on the exclusive rights of a copyright owner (19 USC §109a) which in this case is Omega.

Ultimately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals position was that using this defense was permissible only where the disputed copies of a copyrighted work were either made or previously sold in the US with the authority of the copyright owner. That is, Costco could not use it as a defense in this instance.

The Supreme Court agreed.

For an in-depth discussion on some possible implications of this decision on imports, check out our program on lawline.com by clicking here.

Questions/comments? Email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com or post below.