Counsel for Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh, a customs broker and former senior manager of Global Trade and Customs at Springs Window Fashions, a producer and seller of window coverings, pushed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to set up a jury trial over whether she was unlawfully fired. During an April 27 oral argument, counsel for Lam continued to make the case that she was illegally let go from her job for expressing her view that the company's window shades imports should be assessed Section 301 China tariffs and that a jury should look at the case (Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh v. Springs Window Fashions, W.D. Wis. #21-2665).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted importer JAS Supply's motion to amend its complaint in a spat over a customs broker contract involving a shipment of 19 containers of alcohol wipes from China. Judge Tana Lin said that the amended complaint cured the defects in the original complaint and disagreed with the defendants, Radiant Global Logistics and Radiant Customs Services, that the amendments were futile (JAS Supply v. Radiant Customs Services, W.D. Wash. #2:21-01015).
Two companies that arrange for the shipment of goods with vessel operating carriers, Shine Shipping and Shine International (Shine), will no longer be able to import, export, transport, offer for sale, sell or assist any such activity, for any goods bearing Nike trademarks, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said. Wrapping up a trademark infringement case, the district court released the terms of the stipulated permanent injunction and final order against Shine, including orders to verify every shipment to the U.S. with either the foreign shipper, importer or foreign freight forwarder (Nike v. B&H Customs Services, S.D.N.Y. #20-01214).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Exporters told the Federal Maritime Commission that detention and demurrage invoices need to include the earliest return dates containers will be allowed at the terminal, and that "clock-stopping events," such as a lack of appointments to bring a container to the terminal, should also be on the invoices. However, the World Shipping Council said that while the earliest return date is something shippers need to know, they need to know it before a carrier invoice.
Two companies that arrange for the shipment of goods with vessel operating carriers, Shine Shipping and Shine International (Shine), will no longer be able to import, export, transport, offer for sale, sell or assist any such activity, for any goods bearing Nike trademarks, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said. Wrapping up a trademark infringement case, the district court released the terms of the stipulated permanent injunction and final order against Shine, including orders to verify every shipment to the U.S. with either the foreign shipper, importer or foreign freight forwarder (Nike v. B&H Customs Services, S.D.N.Y. #20-01214).
CBP recently added a frequently asked questions page to its website on electronic signatures on customs broker powers of attorney (POAs), indicating that it's up to brokers and their clients to determine whether electronic signatures are allowed under the relevant state law, and noting that parties may include a choice of law clause to ensure an electronic signature is legal.
Inaccurate invoices, charges for cargo that sits around because the ship left early, demurrage charges that start before the container reaches the terminal, charges for not retuning empty equipment when no appointments were available -- importers and brokers have many complaints about the detention and demurrage billing practices, and are telling the Federal Maritime Commission that they hope it standardizes how ocean carriers and marine terminals bill, and puts guardrails around their practices.
An individual who is challenging her failed customs broker test without a lawyer (see 2202170065) responded to DOJ's motion for a more definitive statement, in an April 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. The unusual filing responds to the U.S.'s request for a more clear legal claim by arguing that Brenda Smith, the executive assistant commissioner at CBP, made mistakes when responding to the plaintiff, Shuzhen Zhong, in her appeal of her customs broker test results. The case requests a review of the six questions that Zhong appealed to CBP in the test. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal. In the filing, Zhong requested to be supplied with a pro bono lawyer (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).
Massive delays and a drop in traffic at the U.S.-Mexico border caused by secondary Texas state inspections have drawn fire from CBP, the trade community and even the White House.