There is an area of Brooklyn called Red Hook that historically, was one of New York City’s main waterfronts and ship servicing areas. Today it remains an area of activity more incidental to shipping, for example, warehousing, than that of berthing activity, though there is some, albeit, on a much smaller scale than before.
I was recently in Red Hook sitting on a small fishing pier that has a great view of the New York Harbor with all of its tugboats, container ships, and of course, Lady Liberty. While walking there, my friend and I passed a 40 ft. container sitting on a chassis, and being the “trade nerd” I am (as described by a commenter to a post I wrote last month), I began describing the differences in containers - the metal boxes cargo is transported in whether by steamship, train or truck – the nuances between them, e.g., refrigerated, insulated, etc., a 40 ft. versus a 20 ft. container, and containerization generally. I also shared other tidbits of information such as the concept of “free time,” which is a certain number of days following the arrival of a container for the purchaser/consignee of the shipment to unload the cargo and return the container to the carrier’s marine terminal.
This particular container had numerous structural deficiencies including small holes and lots of dents. Notably, the wheels of the chassis looked so old I wondered how they could be operable, which caused me to think that this container could be used for temporary storage and raised a host of warehouseman liability issues in my mind.
I described the risk to cargo during an ocean carriage situation if the moisture in a container became too high, citing examples I have dealt with in cargo claim cases, including that of rusty machinery and rotten mung beans.
As I pointed out the container number, my friend asked what some of the other words and numbers on the exterior of the container meant, and we went through what some of the terms meant, including “tare weight,” payload and cubic capacity. To see this information on some common cargo shipping container sizes, click here.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
“Common Cultivars,” “Common Food Crops,” the Lacey Act and a Proposed Rule to Define These Terms
As amended, the Lacey Act now makes it unlawful to
1) Import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, taken in violation of any federal, state, tribal, or foreign law that protects plants (with some limited exceptions), and
2) Make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant covered by the Act, and
3) Import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration.
I remember when the 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act first went into effect and the conversations that came up around importer compliance:
“Will a declaration be required for my importation of cotton t-shirts?”
“Is the enclosed paper packing that cushions my merchandise going to require a Lacey Act declaration upon importation?”
The importing community really did not know how to make heads or tails out of these new laws, in large part, because there was little to no regulatory guidance as to their application. Let me rewind and explain what the Lacey Act is.
The Lacey Act, circa 1900, is the oldest wildlife statute in the U.S. Its mandate is to combat the illegal trafficking of plants, fish and wildlife.
As detailed above (in bold), with the new amendments, beginning in 2008, it became illegal to do certain acts involving plants and plant products. Part of this mandate therefore, included a requirement to make an import declaration stating
1) the scientific name of the plant
2) the value of the importation, and
3) the name of country from which the plant was harvested.
Fortunately, there were exceptions to this requirement, namely, if your merchandise was considered either a (1) “Common Cultivar” or, (2) “Common Food Crop.”
The problem has been however, that there has been no definition to describe what these two terms actually mean. (An administrative law issue not unlike that discussed in my previous article dated August 5, 2010.)
The obvious dilemma for the importing community has been one involving the judgment call made in deciding whether a declaration was necessary or not. After all, determining what a plant is may be relatively simple, but how many folks have ever heard if the term “common cultivar?”
To (finally) address this problem, both the U.S. Dept. of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, together with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) set forth a proposed definition last week for these terms.
The proposed definitions, found in the Federal Register notice 75 FR 46859, are as follows:
Common cultivar. A plant (except a tree) that:
(a) Has been developed through selective breeding or other means for specific morphological or physiological characteristics; and
(b) Is a species or hybrid that is cultivated on a commercial scale; and
(c) Is not listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
Common food crop. A plant that:
(a) Has been raised, grown, or cultivated for human or animal consumption, and
(b) Is a species or hybrid that is cultivated on a commercial scale; and
(c) Is not listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
If you would like to make comments on these proposed definitions, here is your chance to participate in the creation of administrative law. You may do so electronically at the Federal eRulemaking Portal or
send two copies by regular mail of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0018, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, stating that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0018.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
1) Import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, taken in violation of any federal, state, tribal, or foreign law that protects plants (with some limited exceptions), and
2) Make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant covered by the Act, and
3) Import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration.
I remember when the 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act first went into effect and the conversations that came up around importer compliance:
“Will a declaration be required for my importation of cotton t-shirts?”
“Is the enclosed paper packing that cushions my merchandise going to require a Lacey Act declaration upon importation?”
The importing community really did not know how to make heads or tails out of these new laws, in large part, because there was little to no regulatory guidance as to their application. Let me rewind and explain what the Lacey Act is.
The Lacey Act, circa 1900, is the oldest wildlife statute in the U.S. Its mandate is to combat the illegal trafficking of plants, fish and wildlife.
As detailed above (in bold), with the new amendments, beginning in 2008, it became illegal to do certain acts involving plants and plant products. Part of this mandate therefore, included a requirement to make an import declaration stating
1) the scientific name of the plant
2) the value of the importation, and
3) the name of country from which the plant was harvested.
Fortunately, there were exceptions to this requirement, namely, if your merchandise was considered either a (1) “Common Cultivar” or, (2) “Common Food Crop.”
The problem has been however, that there has been no definition to describe what these two terms actually mean. (An administrative law issue not unlike that discussed in my previous article dated August 5, 2010.)
The obvious dilemma for the importing community has been one involving the judgment call made in deciding whether a declaration was necessary or not. After all, determining what a plant is may be relatively simple, but how many folks have ever heard if the term “common cultivar?”
To (finally) address this problem, both the U.S. Dept. of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, together with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) set forth a proposed definition last week for these terms.
The proposed definitions, found in the Federal Register notice 75 FR 46859, are as follows:
Common cultivar. A plant (except a tree) that:
(a) Has been developed through selective breeding or other means for specific morphological or physiological characteristics; and
(b) Is a species or hybrid that is cultivated on a commercial scale; and
(c) Is not listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
Common food crop. A plant that:
(a) Has been raised, grown, or cultivated for human or animal consumption, and
(b) Is a species or hybrid that is cultivated on a commercial scale; and
(c) Is not listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
If you would like to make comments on these proposed definitions, here is your chance to participate in the creation of administrative law. You may do so electronically at the Federal eRulemaking Portal or
send two copies by regular mail of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0018, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, stating that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0018.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Consumer Safety Product Commission (CPSC) and Children's Products
Last week I received an inquiry from a self-described “rookie” apparel importer regarding the use of a bonded warehouse for certain importations. Along with the inquiry came links to a couple of websites that showcased the women’s wear (very cute btw) at issue.
I thought about the myriad of U.S. Customs issues raised by his inquiry alone, and since it dealt with apparel, my mind wandered over to the Flammable Fabrics Act (and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) oversight of compliance with that statute), and I wondered to what extent he was familiar with other government agency laws.
The relevance of this awareness as an importer, is that since U.S. Customs enforces U.S. laws at the border on behalf of other federal agencies, importers must be knowledgeable about - and in compliance with - these laws.
While there are numerous CPSC regulations covering many specific products, from baby bouncers and walkers, to felt-tip marking devices, to mattresses, there are certain CPSC rules that cover broad product categories, such as those regarding children’s products, including the regulation of lead paint, lead content, small parts, and children’s metal jewelry. Some currently applicable details behind each of these rules are as follows:
Lead paint on children’s products (16 CFR Part 1303)
Maximum Allowable Limit: 90 ppm
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: 8/14/09
What Needs to be Tested: Any type of surface coating
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
NO - SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
Small parts (16 CFR Part 1501)
(only pertains to products intended for use by children under 3 y.o.)
Maximum Allowable Limit: n/a
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: 2/15/09
What Needs to be Tested: Size of small components
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
NO - SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
Lead in metal components of children’s metal jewelry (CPSIA §101)
Maximum Allowable Limit: 300 ppm
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: 8/14/09
What Needs to be Tested: Testing of accessible parts
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
NO – SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
Total lead content in metal children’s products and in non-metal children’s products (CPSIA §101)
Maximum Allowable Limit: 300 ppm [scheduled for reduction to 100 ppm on Aug. 14, 2011]
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: Feb. 10, 2011
What Needs to be Tested: Testing of accessible components (RULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
YES – THROUGH FEB. 9, 2011
One oddball aspect to administrative law, i.e., where a federal agency promulgates (i.e., creates) regulations interpreting a statute (law), is that in order to get a final regulation, the proposed rule must undergo a “notice and comment” period. As these new children’s product rules came out of a 2008 law – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) – the creation of regulations is still ongoing, causing confusion in the trade community as to what ought to be followed.
For example, the CPSC is in the process of coming up with an “interpretive rule” on the meaning of the term “children’s product.” In other words, compliance is being sought across products for which no finalized definition exists, which begs the question – how can importers know how to be compliant? And how does U.S. Customs actually know what to enforce?
Lastly, if it weren’t confusing enough, the rules keep changing as we await a final rule. For example, this last category of each section above, “Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement” refers to the following.
There is a “stay” with regards to lead content in children’s metal consumer products (with the exception of metal jewelry) and non-metal consumer products. This means that while children’s products must be in compliance with CPSC lead content rules, the enforcement against non-compliance with the lead content rule for children’s consumer products is not currently in effect because it is “stayed.”
To keep track of CPSIA updates, click here.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Citations:
74 FR 68593, (12/28/09).
“The Commission plans to keep the stay in effect for total lead content in metal children’s products and in nonmetal children’s products tested pursuant to CPSC–CH–E1001–08, Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Total Lead (Pb) in Children’s Metal Products or CPSC–CH– E1002–08, Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Total Lead (Pb) in Non-Metal Children’s Products, (section 101 of the CPSIA) until February 10, 2011. With regard to lead content, the Commission has determined that testing of children’s products for lead content by a recognized third party testing laboratory and certification based upon that testing should begin on products manufactured after February 10, 2011 to allow component testing to form the basis for certifications for lead content and permit the staff to complete an interpretative rule on the meaning of the term ‘‘children’s product.’’ 74 FR 68588, pg. 68591 (12/28/09).
I thought about the myriad of U.S. Customs issues raised by his inquiry alone, and since it dealt with apparel, my mind wandered over to the Flammable Fabrics Act (and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) oversight of compliance with that statute), and I wondered to what extent he was familiar with other government agency laws.
The relevance of this awareness as an importer, is that since U.S. Customs enforces U.S. laws at the border on behalf of other federal agencies, importers must be knowledgeable about - and in compliance with - these laws.
While there are numerous CPSC regulations covering many specific products, from baby bouncers and walkers, to felt-tip marking devices, to mattresses, there are certain CPSC rules that cover broad product categories, such as those regarding children’s products, including the regulation of lead paint, lead content, small parts, and children’s metal jewelry. Some currently applicable details behind each of these rules are as follows:
Lead paint on children’s products (16 CFR Part 1303)
Maximum Allowable Limit: 90 ppm
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: 8/14/09
What Needs to be Tested: Any type of surface coating
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
NO - SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
Small parts (16 CFR Part 1501)
(only pertains to products intended for use by children under 3 y.o.)
Maximum Allowable Limit: n/a
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: 2/15/09
What Needs to be Tested: Size of small components
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
NO - SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
Lead in metal components of children’s metal jewelry (CPSIA §101)
Maximum Allowable Limit: 300 ppm
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: 8/14/09
What Needs to be Tested: Testing of accessible parts
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
NO – SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
Total lead content in metal children’s products and in non-metal children’s products (CPSIA §101)
Maximum Allowable Limit: 300 ppm [scheduled for reduction to 100 ppm on Aug. 14, 2011]
Must be Certified as Compliant if Product Made on/after This Date: Feb. 10, 2011
What Needs to be Tested: Testing of accessible components (RULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Current Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement?
YES – THROUGH FEB. 9, 2011
One oddball aspect to administrative law, i.e., where a federal agency promulgates (i.e., creates) regulations interpreting a statute (law), is that in order to get a final regulation, the proposed rule must undergo a “notice and comment” period. As these new children’s product rules came out of a 2008 law – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) – the creation of regulations is still ongoing, causing confusion in the trade community as to what ought to be followed.
For example, the CPSC is in the process of coming up with an “interpretive rule” on the meaning of the term “children’s product.” In other words, compliance is being sought across products for which no finalized definition exists, which begs the question – how can importers know how to be compliant? And how does U.S. Customs actually know what to enforce?
Lastly, if it weren’t confusing enough, the rules keep changing as we await a final rule. For example, this last category of each section above, “Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirement” refers to the following.
There is a “stay” with regards to lead content in children’s metal consumer products (with the exception of metal jewelry) and non-metal consumer products. This means that while children’s products must be in compliance with CPSC lead content rules, the enforcement against non-compliance with the lead content rule for children’s consumer products is not currently in effect because it is “stayed.”
To keep track of CPSIA updates, click here.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Citations:
74 FR 68593, (12/28/09).
“The Commission plans to keep the stay in effect for total lead content in metal children’s products and in nonmetal children’s products tested pursuant to CPSC–CH–E1001–08, Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Total Lead (Pb) in Children’s Metal Products or CPSC–CH– E1002–08, Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Total Lead (Pb) in Non-Metal Children’s Products, (section 101 of the CPSIA) until February 10, 2011. With regard to lead content, the Commission has determined that testing of children’s products for lead content by a recognized third party testing laboratory and certification based upon that testing should begin on products manufactured after February 10, 2011 to allow component testing to form the basis for certifications for lead content and permit the staff to complete an interpretative rule on the meaning of the term ‘‘children’s product.’’ 74 FR 68588, pg. 68591 (12/28/09).
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Teaching International Business Law at SUNY’s Fashion Institute of Technology – Fall 2010
As a young attorney, I remember the thrill of being addressed as “Counselor” while walking through the courthouse or litigating at the bench.
Now I have an additional title – “Professor.” It’s got a nice ring to it, n’est-ce pas?
I was recently asked to the teach the International Business Law class as an adjunct professor in the International Trade and Marketing Dept. at F.I.T. Having sketched my own clothing collection at the age of 10, and having considered a path in fashion or interior design after graduating from U.C. Berkeley, it truly feels like I have come “full circle” in terms of personal and professional pursuits.
Provoking thought, exploring novel ideas, and analyzing diverse perspectives are all components that will make up a regular part of this course.
Substantively, students will learn about the multi-faceted legal and ethical framework of international business
- from basic contract formation, to
- international financing mechanisms, to
- the international sale and transportation of goods, to
- the global bodies regulating these transactions, to
- the multilateral agreements that affect business relationships, to
- the identification of liabilities, and risk reduction, and
- intellectual property and other emerging international business issues, such as e-commerce.
Using an action based learning method I created will allow for greater student retention of the material while simultaneously teaching “real world’ business skills, such as negotiating and “thinking-on-one’s-feet” in a business setting.
Challenging assumptions and broadening perspectives is also a part of what I hope to achieve in this dynamic class. See you in the Fall!
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
NYC "City Catwalk" with DVF, Norma Kamali and Prabal Gurung
“Good Things Happen Out of Authenticity” – Diane Von Furstenberg
Last night I had the pleasure of going to the New York Times Center for a talk called “City Catwalk” with designers Diane Von Furstenberg (DVF), Norma Kamali and Prabal Gurung, together with Fern Mallis – widely credited as the creator of NYC Fashion Week – and NY Times fashion reporter, Eric Wilson, who served as the moderator.
Every now and again, a really fun occasion will come along that is beneficial both personally and professionally. This was definitely an event that falls into both categories, and I brought along with me a student I mentor who is in the International Trade and Marketing baccalaureate program at SUNY’s Fashion Institute of Technology. Needless to say, she was thrilled to accompany me!
City Cat Walk is an on-the-street public display of designer creations on mannequins throughout the garment district. These 3 designers, along with 29 others, are participating in the City Cat Walk event which runs until early September.
The designers began by describing their inspiration for their mannequins. Starting with Belgian born DVF, she described the leopard print as being “timeless” and mentioned that women like to feel “feline.” The audience loved that comment! For this reason, she opted to have her mannequin covered in a purple leopard print.
American born Norma Kamali described her inspiration as being that of technology and traced back across the years to the beginning of her career after graduating from SUNY’s Fashion Institute of Technology. Her mannequin has various bar codes on it that can be scanned by mobile phones for a chance to win prizes, and to see other designs of hers, which I thought was a pretty technologically savvy concept.
Nepalese born Prabal Gurung described the inspiration for his mannequin as being derived from the late Steve McQueen, to whom he wanted to pay tribute to, as McQueen had been someone whose styles had inspired the development of Prabal’s own sense of fashion design. His mannequin has multiple white butterflies around its head with one red butterfly on the side.
Each of the designers then described their own approach to fashion. DVF explained that by making the “wrap dress” out of a jersey fabric back in the 1970s, which is a dress with no buttons or zippers, it made a stylish dress even sexier for women, both in that era and to this day. The dress has transcended multiple generations and as she described it, it is a “first.” That is, a first sign of success (which I whole heartedly agree with), and she likened it to the emotional equivalent of a first job, as well as – and I quote – the “first time you get laid.”
Norma shared a story about camping as a young adult and how at that time she realized she wanted to make a coat out of a sleeping bag. From that incident, arose her infamous “sleeping bag coat” which has been a hit since 1975. As DVF described this coat, it is utilitarian and emotional, and for these reasons women love it.
Prabal, being the newest designer of the bunch, shared his belief that “a job well done is when you find an audience who loves what you do, and you do it with passion.” He was clear about how much he enjoys what he does, namely, being able to live his thoughts and dreams, and to make them a reality.
Lastly, there was a discussion around “Made in the USA” and maintaining some semblance of a garment industry here. 95% of Prabal’s merchandise is made right here in NYC, with the remaining 5% being an importation of cashmere from his home country of Nepal. Norma, likewise, manufactures in the USA, and DVF participates in endeavors to help maintain the integrity of the systems in place, including infrastructure, and the development of new ventures, such as the Vogue Fashion Fund.
As for my lasting impression of the three of them, in word or two, I would describe each in the following way:
Norma Kamali – the philanthropist
Prabal Gurung – a rising star
Diane Von Furstenberg – a humorous inspiration
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Last night I had the pleasure of going to the New York Times Center for a talk called “City Catwalk” with designers Diane Von Furstenberg (DVF), Norma Kamali and Prabal Gurung, together with Fern Mallis – widely credited as the creator of NYC Fashion Week – and NY Times fashion reporter, Eric Wilson, who served as the moderator.
Every now and again, a really fun occasion will come along that is beneficial both personally and professionally. This was definitely an event that falls into both categories, and I brought along with me a student I mentor who is in the International Trade and Marketing baccalaureate program at SUNY’s Fashion Institute of Technology. Needless to say, she was thrilled to accompany me!
City Cat Walk is an on-the-street public display of designer creations on mannequins throughout the garment district. These 3 designers, along with 29 others, are participating in the City Cat Walk event which runs until early September.
The designers began by describing their inspiration for their mannequins. Starting with Belgian born DVF, she described the leopard print as being “timeless” and mentioned that women like to feel “feline.” The audience loved that comment! For this reason, she opted to have her mannequin covered in a purple leopard print.
American born Norma Kamali described her inspiration as being that of technology and traced back across the years to the beginning of her career after graduating from SUNY’s Fashion Institute of Technology. Her mannequin has various bar codes on it that can be scanned by mobile phones for a chance to win prizes, and to see other designs of hers, which I thought was a pretty technologically savvy concept.
Nepalese born Prabal Gurung described the inspiration for his mannequin as being derived from the late Steve McQueen, to whom he wanted to pay tribute to, as McQueen had been someone whose styles had inspired the development of Prabal’s own sense of fashion design. His mannequin has multiple white butterflies around its head with one red butterfly on the side.
Each of the designers then described their own approach to fashion. DVF explained that by making the “wrap dress” out of a jersey fabric back in the 1970s, which is a dress with no buttons or zippers, it made a stylish dress even sexier for women, both in that era and to this day. The dress has transcended multiple generations and as she described it, it is a “first.” That is, a first sign of success (which I whole heartedly agree with), and she likened it to the emotional equivalent of a first job, as well as – and I quote – the “first time you get laid.”
Norma shared a story about camping as a young adult and how at that time she realized she wanted to make a coat out of a sleeping bag. From that incident, arose her infamous “sleeping bag coat” which has been a hit since 1975. As DVF described this coat, it is utilitarian and emotional, and for these reasons women love it.
Prabal, being the newest designer of the bunch, shared his belief that “a job well done is when you find an audience who loves what you do, and you do it with passion.” He was clear about how much he enjoys what he does, namely, being able to live his thoughts and dreams, and to make them a reality.
Lastly, there was a discussion around “Made in the USA” and maintaining some semblance of a garment industry here. 95% of Prabal’s merchandise is made right here in NYC, with the remaining 5% being an importation of cashmere from his home country of Nepal. Norma, likewise, manufactures in the USA, and DVF participates in endeavors to help maintain the integrity of the systems in place, including infrastructure, and the development of new ventures, such as the Vogue Fashion Fund.
As for my lasting impression of the three of them, in word or two, I would describe each in the following way:
Norma Kamali – the philanthropist
Prabal Gurung – a rising star
Diane Von Furstenberg – a humorous inspiration
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
US Customs Report Shows Importing Community Doing a Good Job
US Customs recently published its 2010 mid-year fiscal report entitled, “Import Trade Trends.” Not surprisingly, after the IRS and Social Security Administration, money collected through US Customs is the third largest source of revenue for the US government.
What may be surprising however, is that only 29% of imported goods are dutiable! The remaining 71% are either duty-free or free under a preferential tariff program.
In case you think this sounds charitable on the part of the U.S., think again. Just as benefits to some foreign imports exist at our borders, the same goes for U.S. products entering those other countries. It is not so much that the U.S. wants to give another country a “hand” (though it may be framed that way in the media), but the idea behind preferential trade agreements is to help facilitate greater U.S. exports by causing more favorable conditions of our products in to foreign lands.
Of interest in the report is that starting last year, China – a country the U.S. does not have a preferential trade agreement with – surpassed Canada – a country the U.S. has NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with – as the top source of imports for America. China is further projected to maintain this lead into 2011.
So far, the first 6 months of the 2010 fiscal year has resulted in $15 billion in revenue for the federal government. Not only that, but a random sampling by US Customs showed that 98.6% of these 2010 imports were materially compliant with the regulations and trade laws of the U.S.
Not only is this rate higher than in recent years, but it demonstrates that importers, and those of us who help importers be compliant, are doing a pretty good job.
Lastly, in the spirit of increased partnering with the public, US Customs has a new online reporting system called “e-Allegations” to report suspected illegal import/export activity as well as the US Customs Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Electronic Reading Room.
For importers specifically, the new phase of ACE was rolled out and is now capable of processing 98% of the entry summaries received by US Customs.
To read the full report, click here.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
What may be surprising however, is that only 29% of imported goods are dutiable! The remaining 71% are either duty-free or free under a preferential tariff program.
In case you think this sounds charitable on the part of the U.S., think again. Just as benefits to some foreign imports exist at our borders, the same goes for U.S. products entering those other countries. It is not so much that the U.S. wants to give another country a “hand” (though it may be framed that way in the media), but the idea behind preferential trade agreements is to help facilitate greater U.S. exports by causing more favorable conditions of our products in to foreign lands.
Of interest in the report is that starting last year, China – a country the U.S. does not have a preferential trade agreement with – surpassed Canada – a country the U.S. has NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with – as the top source of imports for America. China is further projected to maintain this lead into 2011.
So far, the first 6 months of the 2010 fiscal year has resulted in $15 billion in revenue for the federal government. Not only that, but a random sampling by US Customs showed that 98.6% of these 2010 imports were materially compliant with the regulations and trade laws of the U.S.
Not only is this rate higher than in recent years, but it demonstrates that importers, and those of us who help importers be compliant, are doing a pretty good job.
Priority trade issues include those involving:
-Textiles - Penalties
- Intellectual Property Rights
- Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
-Import Safety - Agriculture
-Revenue Collection
Lastly, in the spirit of increased partnering with the public, US Customs has a new online reporting system called “e-Allegations” to report suspected illegal import/export activity as well as the US Customs Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Electronic Reading Room.
For importers specifically, the new phase of ACE was rolled out and is now capable of processing 98% of the entry summaries received by US Customs.
To read the full report, click here.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Minding Your T's&C's (Terms and Conditions)
For better or worse, there is no escaping my international trade legal life - not even on vacation. The liabilities and implications about “you-name-it” run through my head as scenarios present themselves.
I am currently sitting on a train in DC without air conditioning with a temperature of 93 degrees Fahrenheit outside. The engine needs to be replaced for our journey, and well, Amtrak figures it’s better to do that now than endure a long train ride to NYC without A/C. In an effort to keep my thoughts elsewhere, I am observing everything around.
One thing that caught my eye was a guy driving a United Tractor with cargo stacked on a pallet. Around the cargo was plastic wrap which is intended to keep the boxes on top of the pallet secure. What I specifically noticed was that the lowest layer of the plastic wrap had come undone and not only that, but the operator drove right over the plastic wrap until it snapped off. I thought at some point there might be a box or two that would fall off but it didn’t happen. Not yet anyway…
Now, one type of transit that I rarely think about is that of moving cargo by train. While in certain jurisdictions, incidents involving the rails could come in under COGSA (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act) as an extension of the waterborne shipment, representation of railroads is not a typical part of my practice.
Observing this about-to-be-damaged-cargo scene got me thinking about liabilities and causation.
The question is always the same in cargo loss cases – where did the damage happen? Right now, the cargo was probably delivered in “good condition” and can possibly be placed on the train as well in good condition. But what about when it comes off the train? What if a box falls off and then something inside gets damaged? Or what if it gets picked up by a trucker which makes no notation of the missing plastic – i.e., potential liability – because it never saw that piece of plastic wrap and doesn’t know that it was even missing? Then, what if when it gets delivered, something is found to be damaged? I could go through a bunch of “what if” scenarios – trust me. But I will spare you.
The point of all of this is that since cargo can be damaged during any part of the journey and for any reason, be it oversight or otherwise, intentional or unintentional, it is important that as a participant in the movement of cargo, that the terms and conditions under which it's transit is to take place must be (a) clear and (b) have real limits to liability, such as a $50 limitation per shipment unless the shipper declares a specific amount and pays a premium for having coverage that would cover the cost of the shipment in the event of an accident.
The terms and conditions should also have specific provisions regarding making claims, such as timeframes from the date of the incident for filing, as well as a protocol for making such claims.
Lastly, there needs to be something indicating the assent of the shipper to the terms and conditions under which the transit is to occur.
At the end of the day, any prudent shipper of cargo will have purchased insurance on the shipment, so that merely filing an insurance claim is all to be done. These terms and conditions therefore become important in terms of defending a claim for monetary damages when the insurance company turns around and sues the transit parties in subrogation.
Rather than being faced with payment of a proportional share of the overall cost of damages to the cargo, the ceiling becomes your limitation – at least in theory anyway. Sometimes it is just cheaper to kick in $1K or $2K to get rid of a case than to hold out to test the theory, given the high cost of litigation and all.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
I am currently sitting on a train in DC without air conditioning with a temperature of 93 degrees Fahrenheit outside. The engine needs to be replaced for our journey, and well, Amtrak figures it’s better to do that now than endure a long train ride to NYC without A/C. In an effort to keep my thoughts elsewhere, I am observing everything around.
One thing that caught my eye was a guy driving a United Tractor with cargo stacked on a pallet. Around the cargo was plastic wrap which is intended to keep the boxes on top of the pallet secure. What I specifically noticed was that the lowest layer of the plastic wrap had come undone and not only that, but the operator drove right over the plastic wrap until it snapped off. I thought at some point there might be a box or two that would fall off but it didn’t happen. Not yet anyway…
Now, one type of transit that I rarely think about is that of moving cargo by train. While in certain jurisdictions, incidents involving the rails could come in under COGSA (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act) as an extension of the waterborne shipment, representation of railroads is not a typical part of my practice.
Observing this about-to-be-damaged-cargo scene got me thinking about liabilities and causation.
The question is always the same in cargo loss cases – where did the damage happen? Right now, the cargo was probably delivered in “good condition” and can possibly be placed on the train as well in good condition. But what about when it comes off the train? What if a box falls off and then something inside gets damaged? Or what if it gets picked up by a trucker which makes no notation of the missing plastic – i.e., potential liability – because it never saw that piece of plastic wrap and doesn’t know that it was even missing? Then, what if when it gets delivered, something is found to be damaged? I could go through a bunch of “what if” scenarios – trust me. But I will spare you.
The point of all of this is that since cargo can be damaged during any part of the journey and for any reason, be it oversight or otherwise, intentional or unintentional, it is important that as a participant in the movement of cargo, that the terms and conditions under which it's transit is to take place must be (a) clear and (b) have real limits to liability, such as a $50 limitation per shipment unless the shipper declares a specific amount and pays a premium for having coverage that would cover the cost of the shipment in the event of an accident.
The terms and conditions should also have specific provisions regarding making claims, such as timeframes from the date of the incident for filing, as well as a protocol for making such claims.
Lastly, there needs to be something indicating the assent of the shipper to the terms and conditions under which the transit is to occur.
At the end of the day, any prudent shipper of cargo will have purchased insurance on the shipment, so that merely filing an insurance claim is all to be done. These terms and conditions therefore become important in terms of defending a claim for monetary damages when the insurance company turns around and sues the transit parties in subrogation.
Rather than being faced with payment of a proportional share of the overall cost of damages to the cargo, the ceiling becomes your limitation – at least in theory anyway. Sometimes it is just cheaper to kick in $1K or $2K to get rid of a case than to hold out to test the theory, given the high cost of litigation and all.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)