Forced Labor is the third most lucrative illicit trade, behind only drugs and weapons, and has an annual trade value of roughly $150 Billion. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), nearly 28 million people are trapped in forced labor, including over 3 million children.
Thankfully, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been working to curb this inhumane practice.
From September 8-11, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) held its first virtual trade week. Over the course of the event, CBP held an action-packed series of webinars on the following topics:
In the midst of this global pandemic and the vast challenges that (we are all navigating) the trade community faces, by us coming together in this way collective commitment to continue our persistent and ongoing dialogue about the most pressing issue facing. CBP believes that improving and delivering effective transparency is an essential element to enhancing trust, and trust is essential to strengthening partnerships and getting things done for your business to thrive and trade community to succeed.
Below are summaries of each of the sessions. Have questions on them? Contact DTL at info@diaztradelaw.com.
Diaz Trade Law is enthusiastic to announce that another one of their articles, “USMCA Import Considerations for Practitioners,” was published by Bloomberg Law! Below is the article reproduced with permission for your reading pleasure. We’d love to hear your feedback!
You can read the article here, by clicking USMCA Import Considerations for Practitioners (where you’ll have the ability to access all of the great hyperlinks) you cannot click on below.
There are so many questions, with an even greater amount of potential answers when importing goods into the United States. What is the HTS classification? Are the product labels marked correctly for entry? What is the product’s country of origin? Should the product receive NAFTA, DR-CAFTA, GSP or some other duty-free treatment? What is more important is that the answers to these questions mean real money! For example, if the product you are importing is eligible for duty-free treatment, it could mean the difference between paying a double-digit tariff versus none at all.
Answering these questions is not always so simple, and are often subject to interpretation. An importer could assume that their own guesses are correct, but, taking that leap places in jeopardy the profitability of the venture, especially as profit margins become ever so tight. What’s worse is that a wrong guess could potentially subject the company to fines if Customs and Border Protection (CBP) simply does not agree with the interpretation you have used in the past. CBP statute of limitations is five years – that translates into a multitude of entries potentially subjected to CBP fines if you have been guessing wrong.
How do you eliminate the guesswork? Submit a Binding Ruling Request! Put simply, a Binding Ruling Request is an official request to CBP that includes relevant information, and often a sample of the product, for CBP to review and respond as to the following:
(1) HTS Classification
(2) Marking/Labels Ruling
(3) Country of Origin Determination
(4) Valuation Rulings
(5) Applicability of […]
In the past year, the Mexican Government (SAT) has issued questionnaires to exporters from the United States which provided a NAFTA Certificate of Origin to the Mexican importer. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Certificate of Origin is always created and signed by the U.S. exporter or producer, and always provided to the Mexican importer at the time of importation so that the Mexican importer may importer the merchandise into Mexico without paying any customs duties. Years later, the Mexican Government may send a questionnaire to first the U.S. exporter, and then the Mexican importer, demanding proof that the merchandise really “originated” in the United States and properly entered Mexico without any payment of customs duties.
The problems are (1) the U.S. exporter falsely completed the NAFTA Certificate of origin either intentionally or by ignorance, (2) the U.S. exporter relied on the U.S. producer who provided misleading information to the U.S. exporter, or (3) the records establishing that the merchandise originated in the United States are not available.
I usually recommend the U.S. exporter who received a letter from the SAT of the Mexican Government to respond. Moreover, it is best to seek the assistance of the supplier of the merchandise to the U.S. exporter and the Mexican importer. If the questionnaire is not answered properly and timely, the SAT will deny the NAFTA preferential treatment, and demand payment of customs duties, late fees, interest, and penalties from the Mexican importer, plus perhaps antidumping duties. The Mexican importer may end […]
