International Trade

Customs and Trade Law Weekly Snapshot

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:

 

 

 

 

 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

  • According to Custom and Border Protection’s (CBP) de novo review of the administrative record in the EAPA case 7401, including the timely and properly filed request for administrative review, and response thereto, the September 11 Determination of evasion under 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c) is AFFIRMED. 
  • According to CBP’s de novo review on remand of the entire administrative record in the EAPA case 7357, including the documents previously omitted from the record and the submissions by Leco Supply and M&B, the October 26 Determination of Evasion under 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c) remains AFFIRMED. 
  • According to […]

Customs and Trade Law Weekly Snapshot

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:

 

 

 

[…]

U.S. Customs – Your Personal Policeman at the Border

Introduction 

Many companies mistakenly believe that registering a trademark or copyright with the U.S. Government provides sufficient protection and remedies. However, there is an additional step that can significantly enhance protection—recording trademarks or copyrights with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs).  

This blog explores the distinct goals of these processes and the advantages of recording intellectual property with the U.S. Customs. 

I. Registering with USPTO and Recording with U.S. Customs: Different Goals

  • Registering with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or U.S. Copyright Office gives public notice of ownership. 
  • Recording with U.S. Customs aims to prevent unauthorized importation of merchandise bearing the registered intellectual property. 
  • U.S. Customs serves as a critical partner in halting counterfeit and infringing products from entering or leaving the United States.

II. Benefits of Recording Trademarks or Copyrights with U.S. Customs

Seizure and Monitoring: 

  • U.S. Customs monitors and seizes infringing merchandise at ports of entry, alleviating the burden on trademark or copyright holders. 
  • This proactive approach eliminates the need to individually locate and prosecute every unauthorized importer, distributor, or retailer, safeguarding intellectual […]

Customs and Trade Law Weekly Snapshot

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:

[…]

Understanding the RPL Export License Exception

U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). Administered by the U.S. Commerce Department, the EAR is a set of regulations which governs whether U.S. persons may export or transfer goods, software, and technology outside of the United States or to non-U.S. citizens. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to the EAR. Violations of the EAR carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties, lose export privileges, and even be imprisoned.

Licensing Exception for “Servicing and Replacement of Parts and Equipment” (RPL)

An export license under the EAR is not necessary if the License Exception for “Servicing and Replacement of Parts and Equipment” (“RPL”) applies. License Exception RPL is described under Part 740.10 of the EAR. RPL is known as a transaction-based exception because the availability/applicability of the exception is based on the terms of the transaction.

According to BIS guidance, the RPL License Exception may be used for the two following scenarios:

  • Replacement Parts – This authorizes the export and reexport of replacement parts for the immediate repair of previously exported, reexported or foreign made equipment incorporating U.S. origin parts on a one-for-one replacement basis. It also authorizes the export and reexport of stock spare parts that were authorized to accompany the export of equipment.
  • Servicing and Replacement – Replacements for defective or unacceptable U.S.-origin equipment. (a) The commodity or software to be replaced must have been […]
Go to Top