Importers are chosen for a Focused Assessment (FA) audit by US Customs for any number of factors related to, inter alia (i.e., “among other things” in everyday language), the type of products imported, the gross dollar value of annual imports, or the way in which entry summary declarations have been prepared.
Where Customs finds that an “unacceptable risk” exists following the completion of the first part of an FA, known as the “Pre Assessment Survey” (PAS), it is not uncommon that it will recommend that the importer prepare a Compliance Improvement Plan (CIP). This plan is prepared by the importer and is supposed to address what types of corrective action the company will take in order to correct the deficiencies identified by Customs, as well as to ensure future compliance.
Examples of deficiencies that could be dubbed an “unacceptable risk,” include that of an incorrect classification, and hence, the issue regarding the payment of the correct amount of duties arises, the lack of inclusion in the dutiable value of something known as an “assist,” which could be the additional cost of a hanger provided to the foreign vendor by the importer, or a failure to have the requisite approvals in the entry packet for the usage of another company’s logo on a product.
The rule is that where an importer elects to implement a CIP, it has a conditional period of six months from the date of the audit report to implement the CIP. Be aware that although this is the rule, a CIP may be asked of an importer where only the draft conclusions to the PAS exists, and the importer is still awaiting the final results from the PAS.
Since Customs does not consider that unacceptable risks are necessarily eliminated until the CIP has been implemented and shown to be effective, preparing the CIP once deficiencies have been identified officially in the draft PAS, and more importantly, implementing internal control procedures once a “risk” area has been identified so as to resolve it, are both areas to promptly take action on.
For more information on customs audits generally, click here.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Friday, December 30, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The African Fashion Industry and AGOA
“Africa is in the spotlight – African designers make bright colored clothes that reflects who Africans are. Designers from the West are noticing that and hopping into the cultural and tribal trends…”
-- Romula Sadiq, Fashion Editor-in-Chief, “HauTe Fashion Africa.com”
I just submitted a paper to a fashion conference about the African Fashion Industry and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is preferential trade agreement between the United States (US) and multiple Sub-Saharan African countries (SSAs).
Africa’s fashion industry is growing exponentially thanks to the internet, which has not only extended its reach, but has also provided a lens for the outer world to look in to Africa and in particular, Sub-Saharan Africa.
This has become ever-increasingly possible with rise in African “Fashion Weeks” including, “Mali Fashion Week,” “Joburg Fashion Week,” “Capetown Fashion Week,” and “Africa Fashion International,” which, according to Ms. Sadiq, have sparked a curiosity amongst Western designers seeking African inspiration.
AGOA was enacted with the hope that it would not only change the trade relationship between the US and SSAs, but that new opportunities would be created for millions of SSA families to build prosperity. Following three (3) expansions, AGOA has evolved into its current version known as “AGOA IV,” and unless another extension is implemented, it will expire in 2015.
The benefit of AGOA, as it applies to the African fashion industry, relates to a unique section providing for duty-free entry (i.e., a 0% duty rate) of textiles and apparel (TAP) when imported directly into the US from an SSA. (HTSUS, 2011) This means e.g., that for a $100 importation of women’s knit cotton shirts, normally subject to a duty rate of 19.7%, rather than costing a total of $119.70 to import [$100 for the shirts + $19.70 in duties], it costs only $100 thereby making it a less expensive product to bring into the US market and therefore, more attractive to the consumer.
This is not however, simply available to an AGOA member SSA. Rather, the US only makes TAP benefits available to those SSAs who have an enforcement mechanism to prevent the illegal transshipment of merchandise, as well as a “Visa Arrangement,” which is a system in place to ensure compliance with all export requirements under AGOA.
The types of TAP products that qualify for AGOA benefits is not universal either, but rather is limited to nine (9) categories. Generally speaking, AGOA requires that TAP are either sewn or assembled from yarns, thread, fabric and/or knit-to-shape components wholly “originating” from the US or an SSA, meaning that the product in all of its entirety must derive from the growth or manufacture of the US or an SSA.
Flexibility from this origination rule however, is granted to those countries which have Least Developed Country (LDC) status which allows non-African components to be used in the manufacture of TAP and yet still be AGOA eligible.
A helpful resource at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel, is Donald Niewiaroski, who is incredibly knowledgeable about the AGOA and in particular about the TAP provisions. (He may be contacted at Donald.Niewiaroski@trade.gov)
Don informed me that legislation was introduced recently to extend the LDC provisions through September 30, 2015. It also would make the new nation of South Sudan eligible for AGOA, whose President, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is in Washington this week for a special conference to promote development in South Sudan.
Similar legislation (HR 2493) has also been introduced in the House by Ways and Means trade subcommittee. According to Don, ranking Democrat Jim McDermott (Wash) and subcommittee chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) are hoping the legislation can be passed by Congress before lawmakers adjourn for the year.
Other senators co-sponsoring the bill are Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass) and ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind) along with Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore), Roy Blunt (R-Mo), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Scott Brown (R-Mass), Ben Cardin (D-Md), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga), Chris Coons (D-Del) and John Thune (R-SD).
Questions/comments? Feel free to post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
-- Romula Sadiq, Fashion Editor-in-Chief, “HauTe Fashion Africa.com”
I just submitted a paper to a fashion conference about the African Fashion Industry and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is preferential trade agreement between the United States (US) and multiple Sub-Saharan African countries (SSAs).
Africa’s fashion industry is growing exponentially thanks to the internet, which has not only extended its reach, but has also provided a lens for the outer world to look in to Africa and in particular, Sub-Saharan Africa.
This has become ever-increasingly possible with rise in African “Fashion Weeks” including, “Mali Fashion Week,” “Joburg Fashion Week,” “Capetown Fashion Week,” and “Africa Fashion International,” which, according to Ms. Sadiq, have sparked a curiosity amongst Western designers seeking African inspiration.
AGOA was enacted with the hope that it would not only change the trade relationship between the US and SSAs, but that new opportunities would be created for millions of SSA families to build prosperity. Following three (3) expansions, AGOA has evolved into its current version known as “AGOA IV,” and unless another extension is implemented, it will expire in 2015.
The benefit of AGOA, as it applies to the African fashion industry, relates to a unique section providing for duty-free entry (i.e., a 0% duty rate) of textiles and apparel (TAP) when imported directly into the US from an SSA. (HTSUS, 2011) This means e.g., that for a $100 importation of women’s knit cotton shirts, normally subject to a duty rate of 19.7%, rather than costing a total of $119.70 to import [$100 for the shirts + $19.70 in duties], it costs only $100 thereby making it a less expensive product to bring into the US market and therefore, more attractive to the consumer.
This is not however, simply available to an AGOA member SSA. Rather, the US only makes TAP benefits available to those SSAs who have an enforcement mechanism to prevent the illegal transshipment of merchandise, as well as a “Visa Arrangement,” which is a system in place to ensure compliance with all export requirements under AGOA.
The types of TAP products that qualify for AGOA benefits is not universal either, but rather is limited to nine (9) categories. Generally speaking, AGOA requires that TAP are either sewn or assembled from yarns, thread, fabric and/or knit-to-shape components wholly “originating” from the US or an SSA, meaning that the product in all of its entirety must derive from the growth or manufacture of the US or an SSA.
Flexibility from this origination rule however, is granted to those countries which have Least Developed Country (LDC) status which allows non-African components to be used in the manufacture of TAP and yet still be AGOA eligible.
A helpful resource at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel, is Donald Niewiaroski, who is incredibly knowledgeable about the AGOA and in particular about the TAP provisions. (He may be contacted at Donald.Niewiaroski@trade.gov)
Don informed me that legislation was introduced recently to extend the LDC provisions through September 30, 2015. It also would make the new nation of South Sudan eligible for AGOA, whose President, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is in Washington this week for a special conference to promote development in South Sudan.
Similar legislation (HR 2493) has also been introduced in the House by Ways and Means trade subcommittee. According to Don, ranking Democrat Jim McDermott (Wash) and subcommittee chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) are hoping the legislation can be passed by Congress before lawmakers adjourn for the year.
Other senators co-sponsoring the bill are Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass) and ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind) along with Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore), Roy Blunt (R-Mo), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Scott Brown (R-Mass), Ben Cardin (D-Md), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga), Chris Coons (D-Del) and John Thune (R-SD).
Questions/comments? Feel free to post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Monday, December 5, 2011
When is a Tote Bag a Wallet?
Never obviously, at least not under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HSTUS).
But what about when you have a make-up bag that could double as a wallet or snack bag? When does size matter when it comes to an HTSUS classification determination?
What about when you have a lunch bag that is made out of a textile? Will the classification turn on it being coated in a plastic coating? What about a rubber/plastic combo?
While I will pass on answering the question about when “size matters,” I can tell you that a duty rate can significantly jump when an article is considered to be coated with an outer surface of plastic versus that of a textile.
Take HTSUS subheading 4202.32 which classifies articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag. The rate of duty on this type of product, such as a make-up bag, when it has an outer surface of cotton is 6.3%.
Contrast this to the same article with an outer surface of a reinforced or laminated plastic, such as a resusable lunch bag. Now an importer is looking at paying a compound rate of duty of 12.1¢ per kilogram, along with an additional 4.6% on top of that.
Moreover, where the same article is coated in a sheeting of plastic that is neither of reinforced or a laminated plastic, now that same article will have a 20% rate of duty, all because of the outer material of the product.
Nuances like these are rife throughout the tariff. I would recommend that importers take a periodic review of its imports to confirm that its use of HTSUS classifications are correct in order to identify any errors – as the HTSUS changes throughout the year – as well as to avoid future penalties due to stopped shipments or customs audits where inadvertent classifications may be discovered and outstanding duties across multiple entries may be sought.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
But what about when you have a make-up bag that could double as a wallet or snack bag? When does size matter when it comes to an HTSUS classification determination?
What about when you have a lunch bag that is made out of a textile? Will the classification turn on it being coated in a plastic coating? What about a rubber/plastic combo?
While I will pass on answering the question about when “size matters,” I can tell you that a duty rate can significantly jump when an article is considered to be coated with an outer surface of plastic versus that of a textile.
Take HTSUS subheading 4202.32 which classifies articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag. The rate of duty on this type of product, such as a make-up bag, when it has an outer surface of cotton is 6.3%.
Contrast this to the same article with an outer surface of a reinforced or laminated plastic, such as a resusable lunch bag. Now an importer is looking at paying a compound rate of duty of 12.1¢ per kilogram, along with an additional 4.6% on top of that.
The rate of duty on most products is typically an ad valorem rate, i.e., a percentage, of the invoice total. On occasion, a product will have a "compound" rate of duty which represents a per unit or per measure (e.g. 10¢/kg) price PLUS an additional ad valorem rate of duty for duty calculation purposes.
Moreover, where the same article is coated in a sheeting of plastic that is neither of reinforced or a laminated plastic, now that same article will have a 20% rate of duty, all because of the outer material of the product.
Nuances like these are rife throughout the tariff. I would recommend that importers take a periodic review of its imports to confirm that its use of HTSUS classifications are correct in order to identify any errors – as the HTSUS changes throughout the year – as well as to avoid future penalties due to stopped shipments or customs audits where inadvertent classifications may be discovered and outstanding duties across multiple entries may be sought.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Monday, November 21, 2011
CPSC Compliance and Consumer Products Not Intended for Children
Importers and the government can often take radically opposite positions when it comes to what is considered a children’s product. Given the myriad of extra regulations surrounding goods for children, it is no wonder that so many importers try to steer clear of having what they consider to not be children's product, identified as such.
The difficulty arises however, when dealing with an article that could be considered attractive to a child. A 3-inch sized colorfully painted object, intended to be merely a decorative household item, could ultimately be considered a toy or children’s product by a government agency. The same holds for a decorative plush good that had not been intended for sale to children but could easily double as a children’s plush toy.
While some imports are an obvious decorative housewares product, such as a large wall plaque with a beer logo on it, with such attachments for hanging already affixed to it, and is therefore, clearly identifiable as not being intended for a child, others simply do not hold water when it comes to the government’s determination as to it not being a children’s article.
With regards to compliance, any imported article with paint or some other surface coating would be subject to Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) rules and require lead paint testing if it is considered a “children’s product” by the government.
In addition to the surface coating issue, when children’s products are involved, there are also lead testing (separate from the lead paint issue), tracking label and other possible rules, such as that regarding small parts which must be adhered to.
Once the testing is complete, then there is the general certificate of conformity requirement that must accompany the shipment attesting to its compliance with the various CPSC rules. This certificate would need to be retained in accordance with Customs record keeping rules and be furnished upon request by Customs and retailers and distributors here in the US.
In addition, if you are planning to have goods shipped into California, or if you have reason to know that they might end up there, it should be noted that the state typically has more stringent rules than those at the national level.
For more information about importation of children’s products, go to www.cpsc.gov.
Questions comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Are Your Imports Flammable?
Merchandise that is potentially flammable such as apparel, is subject to flammability testing in order to confirm its acceptability for importation. Wearing apparel that is determined to be flammable, or that for which has not been tested to gauge its ability to ignite, may not be imported into the U.S. nor offered for sale here.
Simply put, it is banned.
Banned from importation, banned from sale here in the U.S., and banned from even the offer of sale.
Articles such as sturdy textile costumes*, including those which would be tied on, whether of a bib style or a waist-to-knee variety, are typically treated as articles of apparel and clothing accessories by US Customs as well as under the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA). (*This type of costume is not to be confused with a flimsy variety which would be classified under Chapter 95 HTSUS)
Since they are considered apparel, this merchandise is subject to the flammability regulations set forth in 16 CFR Part 1610.
All textile fabrics intended, or sold for use in, wearing apparel, and all such fabrics contained in articles of wearing apparel, are subject to the requirements of the FFA, which are enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”). [1]
The purpose of the FFA testing requirements is to prohibit the use of any dangerously flammable clothing textiles in order to reduce the danger of injury and loss of life. [2] With regards to general labeling requirements for adult wearing apparel, information about the fiber content, country of origin and RN number information should be included.
While a label is not required to be sewn onto the apparel indicating CPSC compliance, or non-compliance,[3] a General Certificate of Conformity is required with importations of apparel that declares that compliance with CPSC enforced laws – including FFA - has been met. This certificate must also be kept for both recordkeeping purposes as well as to furnish to retailers and/or CPSC upon request.
CPSC is the enforcement agency for violations of the FFA and under the current regulations, the maximum penalty amount for a known violation is $100,000, with a maximum penalty for any related series of violations being $15,000,000.[4]
With penalties this extreme, it is imperative that importers obtain the requisite compliance advice pre-importation rather than to cut corners and be put out of business later.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
[1] The requirements of 16 CFR §1610.1(e) state that “[t]he requirements of this part 1610 shall apply to textile fabric or related material in a form or state ready for use in an article of wearing apparel, including garments and costumes finished for consumer use.”
[2] 16 CFR §1610.1.
[3] While California’s Proposition 65, which deals with levels of chemicals, requires a label when a product is not in compliance, federal regulations do not require such labeling under the flammability rules as the product is merely banned from importation and/or sale.
[4] CPSIA Sec. 217(a)(4).
Simply put, it is banned.
Banned from importation, banned from sale here in the U.S., and banned from even the offer of sale.
Articles such as sturdy textile costumes*, including those which would be tied on, whether of a bib style or a waist-to-knee variety, are typically treated as articles of apparel and clothing accessories by US Customs as well as under the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA). (*This type of costume is not to be confused with a flimsy variety which would be classified under Chapter 95 HTSUS)
Since they are considered apparel, this merchandise is subject to the flammability regulations set forth in 16 CFR Part 1610.
All textile fabrics intended, or sold for use in, wearing apparel, and all such fabrics contained in articles of wearing apparel, are subject to the requirements of the FFA, which are enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”). [1]
Under FFA, when a fabric (or any uncovered or exposed part of it) is so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, and where it exhibits a rapid and intense burning when tested under the testing conditions set forth in Subpart A of 16 CFR Part 1610, it is prohibited from importation, and banned for sale or offer for sale here in the U.S.
The purpose of the FFA testing requirements is to prohibit the use of any dangerously flammable clothing textiles in order to reduce the danger of injury and loss of life. [2] With regards to general labeling requirements for adult wearing apparel, information about the fiber content, country of origin and RN number information should be included.
While a label is not required to be sewn onto the apparel indicating CPSC compliance, or non-compliance,[3] a General Certificate of Conformity is required with importations of apparel that declares that compliance with CPSC enforced laws – including FFA - has been met. This certificate must also be kept for both recordkeeping purposes as well as to furnish to retailers and/or CPSC upon request.
CPSC is the enforcement agency for violations of the FFA and under the current regulations, the maximum penalty amount for a known violation is $100,000, with a maximum penalty for any related series of violations being $15,000,000.[4]
With penalties this extreme, it is imperative that importers obtain the requisite compliance advice pre-importation rather than to cut corners and be put out of business later.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
[1] The requirements of 16 CFR §1610.1(e) state that “[t]he requirements of this part 1610 shall apply to textile fabric or related material in a form or state ready for use in an article of wearing apparel, including garments and costumes finished for consumer use.”
[2] 16 CFR §1610.1.
[3] While California’s Proposition 65, which deals with levels of chemicals, requires a label when a product is not in compliance, federal regulations do not require such labeling under the flammability rules as the product is merely banned from importation and/or sale.
[4] CPSIA Sec. 217(a)(4).
Monday, November 14, 2011
Duty Drawback Event This Wed. With OWIT-NY
Come join me Wednesday evening for an informative discussion exploring the benefits of using drawback for duty savings.
OWIT-NY guest speaker Brenda L. Sweetman has 25 + years experience in the field. She is the Vice President of C.J. Holt & Co., Inc. (CJH), a company that specializes in full service duty drawback assistance. She has managed drawback programs for companies in a wide variety of industries and now focuses on new account development. Brenda taught drawback courses for the World Trade Institute for many years and is now doing the same for World Academy. She is also a member of the teaching staff at Global Trade Academy and has also authored many articles on the topic of duty drawback.
About OWIT-NY:
The Organization of Women in International Trade - New York (OWIT-NY) is a non-profit organization that provides support, inspiration, information and networking opportunities to women and men who are active members of the international trade community.
Our members represent a diverse range of occupations, including banking, finance, communications, customs and trade law, education, government and diplomacy, import and export trade, insurance, technology, trade-related non-profits, transportation and international services.
OWIT-NY is an affiliate chapter of the Organization of Women in International Trade (OWIT).
To register for this event click here. Hope to see you there!
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011
Time: Networking and refreshments at 6:00pm. Program commences at 6:30pm.
Location: Law offices of Baker & McKenzie in the Grace Building, 1114 Avenue of the Americas (the entrance is on 42nd Street directly across from Bryant Park.) New York, NY
Cost: $20 for OWIT-NY members, students and government employees, $25 for non-members
OWIT-NY guest speaker Brenda L. Sweetman has 25 + years experience in the field. She is the Vice President of C.J. Holt & Co., Inc. (CJH), a company that specializes in full service duty drawback assistance. She has managed drawback programs for companies in a wide variety of industries and now focuses on new account development. Brenda taught drawback courses for the World Trade Institute for many years and is now doing the same for World Academy. She is also a member of the teaching staff at Global Trade Academy and has also authored many articles on the topic of duty drawback.
About OWIT-NY:
The Organization of Women in International Trade - New York (OWIT-NY) is a non-profit organization that provides support, inspiration, information and networking opportunities to women and men who are active members of the international trade community.
Our members represent a diverse range of occupations, including banking, finance, communications, customs and trade law, education, government and diplomacy, import and export trade, insurance, technology, trade-related non-profits, transportation and international services.
OWIT-NY is an affiliate chapter of the Organization of Women in International Trade (OWIT).
To register for this event click here. Hope to see you there!
Monday, October 31, 2011
US Customs Perspective on Ambiguities in CAFC Decisions
The CAFC is the appeals court for cases that are heard at the U.S.C.I.T. for which appeal is sought by a party that is unhappy with the lower court’s decision. The U.S.C.I.T. hears cases that both relate to US Customs and Border Protection issues, such as those regarding the classification or valuation of merchandise, in addition to hearing what are known in the industry as “trade” cases which deal with anti-dumping duties (ADD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) issues, whose duties and the rules are governed by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce (DOC).
Last week I had the pleasure of going to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Washington D.C. to attend a seminar that dealt, in part, with court decisions and ambiguities therein. Among the speakers was Sandra Bell, Executive Director for the Office of Regulations and Rulings at U.S. Customs, who shared a few thoughts from her agency’s perspective.
US Customs primary interest in court decisions is their impact on the agency to have a clear mandate follow after the decision is made. That is, in her own words, she wanted to see a “bright line rule” so that US Customs could have clear guidance for setting regulatory policy that would be in accordance with court decisions.
Ms. Bell spoke about 2 cases in which US Customs “learned” a bright line rule. In the first case, the court had to consider whether or not US Customs had erred by not accepting certain information from an importer regarding ADD which had not been provided at the time of entry, but which had been later provided pre-liquidation.
When it comes to ADD, US Customs is merely supposed to follow instructions set by the DOC regarding the treatment of imported goods subject to an ADD. US Customs does not have the authority to make independent decisions or rules regarding the cargo when it comes to the application of ADD rules on imports.
Despite this, US Customs nonetheless denied the acceptance of the importer’s post-entry submission of information with respect to ADD, deeming it to be untimely as it had not been filed at the time of entry, and ultimately denied the Protest made by the importer (who claimed it had filed all of the requisite information) despite it having been timely filed.
The outcome of this case - or in other words, the Bright Line Rule - was that when applying DOC instructions, US Customs is required to consider additional information properly provided in a Protest and by not doing so, it’s actions had been wrong.
Another example of a case that had a “bright line” was CBB Group, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 11-75.
This case dealt with a detention by US Customs of plush toys with a protected trademark on the toys. Rather than seizing the goods, US Customs merely detained them without making a decision on the status of the goods. It detained them for so long that they were ultimately considered a “deemed exclusion.”
CBB Group filed a Protest which was denied by US Customs and the very next day CBB Group went to the U.S.C.I.T. and filed a Summons to begin the process of judicial review of the action taken by US Customs. Oddly enough, US Customs decided at virtually the same time, but not before the Summons had been filed, to seize the goods.
The question presented to the court was thus a jurisdictional one: Whether or not Customs was still able to control the cargo now that a court case had been commenced, or if instead, that jurisdiction was now with the court.
The outcome of this case was that once jurisdiction had already been attached by the U.S.C.I.T., it was no longer within the purview of US Customs to take further action with respect to the cargo.
Both of these cases reflected outcomes that were unfavorable to US Customs however, both provided guidance with respect to how to treat cargo under specific circumstances, and for this they were instructive and of value to the agency according to Ms. Bell.
Whether the case was favorable to the agency or not, what mattered was that there was clear guidance with respect to agency action that came out of the decision.
Contrasting these decisions to a different one, another speaker made reference to the Le Mans Corporation v. US, 2010-1295 case, in which sportswear for motorcross activity had not been considered as being properly classified under Chapter 95 as articles of sports equipment but were instead classified under Chapter 61 and 62 as apparel.
In this case, a long-established designation for what had been considered sportswear was prima facie challenged (however, upon further discussion it was pointed out by an audience member that a distinction had been made with respect to the padding within the garment itself, causing it to be categorically ineligible - something I am sure other members of the bar could have argued about in disagreement.)
As many other sports equipment cases had been decided under this long-established designation, the court’s decision to not treat these articles in a similar fashion was considered by many to have created an ambiguity within the classification of such products.
Ambiguities may make it harder to know how to classify a particular item, and some would argue that it does. On the flip side of this however, it is the flexible nature of an ambiguous decision itself that can provide for a broader application of a certain set of rules across a wider variety of imports.
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)