Tag Archives: CBP SEIZURE

Behind the Scenes: CBP Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Processes

Yesterday, the American Bar Association’s Section of International Law hosted a program for its members to hear from and speak directly with CBP Office of Regulations and Rulings, represented by Chief of the Penalties Branch, John Connors.  Mr. Connors told the group in attendance (live and via phone conference) that while he is not authorized to discuss recent or pending cases, he would be discussing the general process within CBP when it is either contemplating or has issued a penalty or seizure notice.

Mr. Connors first explained that many people are confused as to which CBP offices have authority in different cases, and that there are also 3 headquarter branches that deal with penalties either after review by the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture Officers in the field at the 300+ ports or concurrent with such review in certain cases dealing with penalties over $100,000.00.  If a case is deemed referred to “Headquarters” it could be with 1)the Office of Field Operations, 2) the Office of International Trade (commercial enforcement), or 3) the Office of Regulations and Rulings.  Thus, there is a need to clarify exactly which office your case is being assessed.

Backing up to the beginning of the process:  First, when goods are being imported or exported, field officers at each port will make initial determinations of whether there are any issues with the goods in question or with the process of importing and exporting the goods.  For example, CBP Officers will look to see if there are any issues with the vessel’s manifest, trademark or copyright infringement, drawback penalties, misclassification of goods, etc.  If there are issues, the field officers will report it to a Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer (“FPFO”) at their respective ports.  There are currently 42 FPFOs that deal with penalty actions.  These officers then determine whether there is a need to issue a penalty or pre-penalty notice or to simply cancel the case without further inquiry.  Mr. Connors reported that cancellation at this stage is extremely rare.

Pre-penalty notices are required to be issued for the following:

Commercial fraud and negligence (19 USC 1592)

Drawback penalties (19 USC 1593a)

Customs Broker penalties (19 USC 1641)

Recordkeeping penalties (19 USC 1509)

Falsity of lack of manifest (19 USC 1584(a)(1))

Equipment and vessel repairs (19 USC 1466).[1]

Once the pre-penalty or penalty notice is issued (depending on the statute), the interested party to whom the notice is issued then has a specified number of days in which to submit a petition requesting relief or to simply pay whatever penalty is assessed.  The relief petition should be sent to the FPFO from whom it was originally issued.  A general rule is that if the penalty is issued for $100,000.00 or less, the initial review of the petition stays with the FPFO who would then respond based on a review of the newly presented facts and arguments within the petition.  If the penalty is issued for greater than $100,000.00 the FPFO would review it then send it directly on to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings (ORR), that is, Mr. Cooper.

If the initial relief petition is denied and if there are any further facts or arguments that would potentially mitigate the issue that were not originally presented, then the interested party may submit a supplemental petition.  The FPFO (or ORR depending on the amount of penalty) will review again and decide whether to relieve the interested party or send the petition to either the Office of Field Operations or the Office of International Trade for further review.

If the penalty is already with ORR, Mr. Connors, will funnel the case out to one of the 18 attorneys working in his office for findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are then sent back to the FPFO for relay to the interested party.  Supplemental petitions are processed in the same manner as those with FPFO, i.e. they start with FPFO for initial review and further fact finding prior to being sent to ORR.  If a supplemental petition is denied, the case then proceeds to Border Security for final review and disposition.  Border Security takes into consideration the recommendations and comments of ORR, but ultimately makes the decision of whether to uphold the denial.

Mr. Connors also discussed the nature of timing when dealing with penalties and told attendees at the luncheon that when the process seems slow, it is because there are many parts that ultimately come together in making a final decision:  FPFO investigations at the outset and further investigations as necessary; hundreds of thousands of cases requiring processing; interested parties asking for extensions; etc.  Therefore, while the process can seem long and arduous, Mr. Connors assured his audience that CBP does what it can to speed things along even in light of the realities of running what amounts to a very, very large company.

The information in this article is meant as a review of Mr. Connors’s discussion of the penalty process and not as an exhaustive review of all that occurs or can occur with respect to CBP issued fines, penalties, and forfeitures.  If you find yourself in the situation of having received a detention notice, a pre-penalty or penalty notice, a seizure notice, or other type of CBP action, we can help you through the process and work towards release of your seized items or mitigation of your potential penalties.  With over 30 collective years of expertise in the field of international trade and customs, the attorneys at the Mooney Law Firm have seen hundreds of cases through this process and are well-equipped to present your best case to Customs in recovering your seized goods or in mitigating or removing your penalties.  Please do not hesitate to contact us (via email at nmooney@customscourt.com or smorrison@customscourt.com or by phone at 800-583-0250) with your issue or with questions regarding this and other processes dealing with international trade and customs.

For more information, either contact us or visit http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/penalties/.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

FMC RULING OPENS DOOR TO MISCHIEF

Sometimes the best intended act can lead to unanticipated results.  In the case of informal docket no.  1916(I)   GUMTREEFABRICS, INC. v. EVER-LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL FORWARDING LIMITED d/b/a EVEROK INTERNATIONAL FORWARDING CO., LTD, the FMC opened the door to conduct which would ordinarily be prohibited.  In that case an importer claimed that cargo was extortionately withheld from delivery to it by a Chinese NVOCC seeking to collect its agent’s debts on other cargo from the importer.  The NVOCC’s agent in the United States had gone bankrupt, leaving the Chinese and with some unpaid obligations.  According to the complaint, fully aware that Gum Tree had already paid the Chinese company’s bankrupt agent what it owed, the Chinese NVOCC nevertheless extortionately withheld other cargo until Gum Tree paid nearly $20,000 of the bankrupt OTI’s debts.

After paying the Chinese again what it had already paid to the bankrupt agent, Gum Tree filed a complaint with the FMC hoping to collect its duplicate payments from the Chinese OTI’s bond.  The Federal Maritime Commission ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the NVOCC’s conduct because the NVOCC used Canadian ports to first discharge the U.S.-bound cargo. In previous rulings the FMC had said that it could not require untariffed or unbonded OTIs using Mexican or Canadian ports to post bonds and tariffs, or obtain other FMC authority to operate between the United States and foreign nations if they avoided U.S. seaports.  But for the first time the agency said that licensed, bonded and tariffed NVOCC can divert cargo to avoid FMC jurisdiction as well.

Now FMC licensing of NVOCCs and the corresponding bonds and tariffs may, in certain circumstances, be reduced to a charade.  All the NVO has to do is divert the cargo via Mexican or Canadian ports.  It can extort or otherwise abuse U.S. shippers without fear of Mexican or Canadian intervention (since the extortion/abuse will be committed in United States), and it can take comfort in the FMC’s position that it has no authority over the NVOCC in those circumstances.  The harmed shipper/consignee cannot invoke the terms of the OTI’s tariff or bond or seek the agency’s assistance as long as the cargo is diverted.

If this ruling is to stand, OTI’s should be required to provide notice to American shippers and consignees when such cargo will not be arriving or departing by sea from a U.S. port and to advise the implications of that fact.  This would help the cargo owner to affirmatively select an OTI which is operating under FMC jurisdiction and has a tariff to abide with a bond at risk.   It would avoid the Gum Tree situation where a shipper unknowingly placed its trust in an OTI which presented only the facade of FMC jurisdiction.  Such a regulation could also strongly encourage the use of U.S. ports in place of cargo diversion to Mexican or Canadian seaports.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized