As a result of the U.S. President’s Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, the proposed rule allows a “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim to be used on meat, poultry and egg products only when they are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States.

Albeit, a very significant caveat accompanies the proposed rule, which is, that, labeling a food product in accordance with the latter is completely voluntary. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) takes a similar course of action. While the FTC regulates U.S. origin claims under its authority to act against deceptive acts and practices, foreign-origin markings on products are regulated primarily by U.S. Customs under the Tariff Act of 1930. The similarity in the rules is that neither Customs nor the FTC requires that goods made partially or wholly in the U.S. be labeled with “Made in USA” or allude to any other indication of U.S. origin (but, if companies do choose to utilize the claim, the company must be prepared to defend it and ensure it uses it correctly). The exception to this is for textile, wool, and fur products as processing or manufacturing occurring in the U.S. must be disclosed.

In the context of the USDA, such labeling would also remain eligible for generic label approval, eliminating the need to be pre-approved by FSIS before it could be used on regulated products, and incorporates laxed auditing standards for supporting documentation.

Another effect of the proposed rule is forecasted to positively impact those involved with animal husbandry for commercial purposes.  The USDA’s proposed rule bolsters the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S) of 1921 ‘“to safeguard farmers and ranchers… to protect consumers… and to protect members of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices”’ This is reassuring when taking into account that:

• The global beef market is projected to grow from $414.98 billion to $604.34 billion by 2029, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.52% in forecast period, 2022-2029;
• The global poultry market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 7.2% to nearly $465.7 billion by 2025, and at a CAGR of 6.8% to $645.7 billion by 2030; and that,
• The global egg market is expected to grow annually by 7.70% (CAGR 2023-2027).

The USDA encourages stakeholders to publicly comment on the proposed rule for the 60-day window after publication of the same at www.regulations.gov. If you have questions or want to make your voice heard, contact info@diaztradelaw.com to discuss how Diaz Trade Law can assist you.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection is reminding the traveling public to be mindful that certain agricultural items such as raw eggs and poultry from Mexico are prohibited from entry into the United States, and failure to declare these items may result in monetary penalties.
• CBP released operational statistics today for December 2022, which can be viewed online here.

The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 

• The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing two general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations: GLs 3 and 4, each of which was previously made available on OFAC’s website.

Department of Commerce (DOC)

• Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing an antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from France.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Dosage and Administration Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products—Content and

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

• The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against Instant Brands, manufacturer of Pyrex-brand kitchen and home products, for falsely claiming that all its popular glass measuring cups were made in the United States during a time some measuring cups were imported from China.

If you have questions about these updates, contact our Diaz Trade Law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control

• The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing nine general licenses (GLs) issued in the Ukraine-/Russia-related Sanctions program: GL 17, Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving the So-Called Donetsk People’s Republic or Luhansk People’s Republic Regions of Ukraine, and GLs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 which are for related issues.
• OFAC is publishing three web general licenses (GLs) issued in the Syria Sanctions Regulations, Iran Transactions and Sanctions Regulations and Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, and Venezuela Sanctions. These licenses authorizing certain activities to respond to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.
• On August 8, 2022, under the cyber-related designation, OFAC made an update to the specially designated nationals list and added the “Tornado Cash” entity to the OFAC’s SDN List.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• On August 11, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a ruling which determined the Court of International (CIT) was wrong to consider China’s non-market economy (NME) status when analyzing whether to grant first sale treatment. The decision overturns and remands a 2021 CIT ruling that said that first sale treatment should not apply for cookware imported by Meyer from Thailand and China through Chinese middleman because China is a NME.

U.S. International Trade Commission

• The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) determined that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea, provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.
• USITC received a complaint entitled Certain Robotic Pool Cleaners, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, DN 3631; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant’s filing pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
• USITC has received a complaint entitled Certain Solar Power Optimizers, Inverters, and Components Thereof, DN 3630; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant’s filing pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
• USITC has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in this investigation and has issued a general exclusion order (“GEO”) prohibiting the importation of certain infringing toner supply containers and components thereof, as well as cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) against certain defaulting respondents. The investigation is terminated.
• USITC has determined to institute a formal enforcement proceeding relating to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist order (“CDO”) (collectively, “the remedial orders”) issued against The Chamberlain Group, LLC (formerly, The Chamberlain Group, Inc.) (“Chamberlain”) on February 9, 2022, and modified on March 30, 2022.

Federal Trade Commission

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has received reports of people receiving letters in the mail from a law firm, with a false claim of a multi-million-dollar inheritance. The letter’s contents include: splitting the inheritance between you, their law firm, and some charities. The writers of the letter require that the recipient keep this information secret and reach out to them by email — immediately. Here are recommendations provided by the FTC on what to do:
  • Don’t respond. Keep your money — and your information — to yourself. Never send money or information to a stranger who promises big rewards. That’s always a scam.
  • Pass this information on to a friend. You probably throw away these kinds of letters. But you probably know someone who could use a friendly reminder.
  • Report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.

U.S. Department of Commerce

• On August 4, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) announced it preliminarily determines that certain steel nails from the Republic of Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
• On August 4, DOC announced it preliminarily determines that certain steel nails from Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
• On August 4, DOC announced it preliminarily determines that certain steel nails from Sri Lanka are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
• On August 4, DOC announced it preliminarily determines that certain steel nails from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
• On August 4, DOC announced it preliminarily determines that certain lemon from the Republic of South Africa (South Africa) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
• On August 4, DOC announced it preliminarily determines that certain lemon juice from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
• As a result of the determinations by the DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan, and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on SSPC from South Africa would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, net countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, DOC is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD orders and the CVD order.
• DOC preliminarily determines that Metalco S.A. (Metalco), the sole company subject to this administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the People’s Republic of China, is part of the China-wide entity because it did not file a separate rate application (SRA).
• DOC is initiating country-wide circumvention inquiries to determine whether imports are circumventing the respective antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) regulations: CWP China, CWP Korea, pipe and tube India, pipe and tube Taiwan, CWP Taiwan, LWRPT China, LWRPT Korea, and LWR tubing Taiwan.
• On August 4, DOC preliminarily determines that Daejin Steel Company (Daejin) and Korea Wire Co., Ltd. (KOWIRE), the producers and/or exporters subject to this administrative review, made sales of certain steel nails from the Republic of Korea at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
• DOC preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea were sold in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
• DOC preliminarily determines that the exporters subject to this antidumping duty (AD) administrative review did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value, and that one company (Shanghai Smart Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Smart)) had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review  July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
• DOC preliminarily determines that producers or exporters of steel concrete reinforcing bar from the Republic of Turkey subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
• DOC is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India.
• DOC preliminarily finds that producers and/or exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
• DOC preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea.  
• DOC preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
• DOC preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of certain collated steel staples from the People’s Republic of China during the period of review from November 12, 2019, through December 31, 2020.
• The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), through its Office of Export Enforcement (OEE), has requested the issuance of an Order temporarily denying, for a period of 180 days, the export privileges under the Regulations of Venezuela-based cargo airline Empresa de Transporte Aéreocargo del Sur, S.A., a/k/a Aerocargo del Sur Transportation Company, a/k/a EMTRASUR (“EMTRASUR”).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the Chair of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), announces the publication and availability of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, a consolidated register of the four lists required to be developed and maintained pursuant to Section 2(d)(2)(B) of the UFLPA, on the DHS UFLPA website.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in Cincinnati seized three shipments of jewelry and watches deemed counterfeit by CBP’s Centers of Excellence and Expertise. Officers intercepted counterfeit jewelry and watches that, if real, would have been worth over $6.88 million.
  • The first shipment originated from Hong Kong, and was destined to a private residence in Richmond, Virginia. Although it had a declared value of $319, the package held 275 assorted Cartier Love bracelets. Had the 275 bracelets been genuine, the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) would have been $3.27 million
  •  The second shipment also arriving from in Hong Kong. Officers found 385 yellow gold Cartier bracelets and 115 white gold Cartier bracelets. These 500 counterfeit bracelets would have had a total MSRP of $3.2 million, had they been real.
  •  CBP officers seized a third shipment from Hong Kong containing 13 fake Rolex watches- 10 Cosmograph Daytona and three Yacht Master II. These counterfeit watches were heading to a business in Mesquite, Texas. Had these been genuine, the MSRP for these watches would have been over $405,000.

Office of the U.S Trade Representative 

• On July 14, 2022, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the launching of the United States-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership (STIP). Under this initiative the two governments will pursue enhanced engagement leading to high standard commitments in a wide range of areas with a view to increasing investment; promoting sustainable and inclusive economic growth; benefiting workers, consumers, and businesses (including micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs)); and supporting African regional economic integration.

If you have questions about these updates, contact our Diaz Trade Law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

United States Trade Representative 

• On July 14, 2022, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, announced the launch of the U.S. – Kenya Statistic Trade and Investment Partnership. USTR announced that the U.S. and Kenya will develop an ambitious roadmap for enhanced cooperation with the goal of negotiating high-standard commitments in order to achieve economically meaningful outcomes in: Agriculture, Anti-Corruption, Digital Trade, Environment and Climate Change Action, Good Regulatory Practices, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Promoting Workers’ Rights and Protections, Supporting Participation of Women, Youth, and Others in Trade, Standard Collaborations, and Trade Facilitation and Customs Procedures.

• On July 20, 2022, pursuant to authority delegated by the President on July 8, 2022, the U.S. Trade Representative reached an agreement with Canada limiting the export from Canada and the import into the United States of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) (CSPV products).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

• US. Customs and Border Protection, launched their Green Trade Strategy, highlighting the agency’s efforts to combat climate change in the context of trade and provides a framework to incentivize green trade, strengthen CBP’s environmental enforcement posture, accelerate green innovation, and improve climate resilience and resource efficiency. With the Green Trade Strategy, CBP is looking to set an example for customs authorities around the world to develop higher, greener standards for global trade while creating an opportunity for government, industry, and the public to unify efforts in the creation of a more sustainable future.
• On July 20, 2022, CBP announced their modification of the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Portal Accounts to establish the ACE Vessel Agency Portal Account, and to decommission the Cartman and Lighterman Portal Accounts due to a lack of usage by the public.

Federal Maritime Commission 

• On July 14, 2022 the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) released an advisory enacting provisions of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA) by providing a simplified process for container carrier customers who want the FCC to investigate their complaints. The steps outlined include: identifying the carrier and the alleged violation, submitting documentation, confirming that the disputed charge was incurred after the June 16 enactment of OSRA, and submitting all the materials in one email, if possible. When the FCC receives sufficient information, it “will promptly initiate an investigation, which could ultimately result in a civil penalty and order for a refund of charges paid,” the advisory states.

Federal Trade Commission

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finalized an order against Resident Home LLC and owner Ran Reske for allegedly making false, misleading, or unsupported advertising claims that their imported DreamCloud mattresses were made from 100% USA-made materials. Resident Home LLC and Reske will pay $753,000. Under the terms of the final order, in addition to paying $753,000, Resident Home LLC and Reske are prohibited from making several claims that deceive consumers and harm law-abiding businesses whose sales decreased because of this behavior.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance updates the March 2018 guidance by removing the temporary policy of permitting the use of the entity role code “UNK” in lieu of a DUNs number.
  • Beginning July 24, 2022, the use of the entity identification code “UNK” will no longer be an option. The FSVP importer will be required to ensure that their valid, 9-digit DUNS number is provided in the Entity Number field. CBP will reject an entry line of a food subject to the FSVP regulation when the importer’s DUNS number is not provided in the Entity Number field.

U.S. Department of Commerce

• On July 20, 2022, DOC  announced it will amend the notice of initiation of administrative reviews of antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders with January 2021 anniversary dates to include a company that was inadvertently omitted from the AD administrative review of softwood lumber from Canada.
• On July 20, 2022, DOC has received a covered merchandise referral from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in connection with a CBP investigation concerning alleged evasion of the antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders on certain magnesia carbon bricks (bricks) from the People’s Republic of China (China).
• On July 20, 2022, DOC announced it will conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman). This review covers 15 exporters and producers from Oman.

U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control

• On July 15, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a settlement with American Express National Bank (Amex), a subsidiary of American Express Company. Amex agreed to remit $430,500 to settle its potential civil liability for 214 apparent violations of OFAC’s Kingpin sanctions.

U.S. International Trade Commission 

• On July 20, 2022, notice is hereby given the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has determined to affirm the remand initial determination (“RID”) issued on December 29, 2021, finding that Complainants failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in the above-referenced section 337 investigation.
• On July 20, 2022, USITC announced Section 206 of the ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3204) requires the Commission to report biennially to the Congress and the President by September 30 of each reporting year on the economic impact of the Act on U.S. industries and U.S. consumers, and on the effectiveness of the Act in promoting drug-related crop eradication and crop substitution efforts by beneficiary countries.

U.S. Department of State

• On July 20, 2022, the U.S. Department of State (DOS), Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is publishing two open general licenses, permitting certain reexports and retransfers. This pilot program involves open general licenses that may be used by certain persons in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom to retransfer certain defense articles within each of the three countries and to reexport certain defense articles between and among the three countries.

If you have questions about these updates, contact our Diaz Trade Law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

To receive an email notification whenever a new post is published, please subscribe to our weekly blog here.

Below we share some of our top 2021 success stories with you.

Successfully Mitigated Liquidated Damages Claims 

• For failure to timely refile rejected entries subject to AD/CV duties:
  • After DTL’s strategic involvement CBP substantially mitigated approximately $5 MILLION in claims down to $26,365.00, successfully saving our client over $4.7 MILLION dollars
  • Our client received 36 liquidated damages notices from CBP totaling over $567,000. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful negotiation with CBP, all 36 cases were canceled by CBP, saving our client $over $567,000!!
• CBP sent our client a liquidated damages claim in the amount of $150,000. As a result of Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, CBP mitigated the liquidated damages claim down to $1,500!
• CBP issued a liquidated damages claim in the amount of $50,000.00. After DTL successfully petitioned CBP, the claim was cancelled!
• CBP issued a liquidated damages claim in the amount of $36,033.00. After DTL successfully petitioned CBP, the claim was mitigated to $360.33 (the best potential mitigation!).

CBP Detention Assistance 

• Mere days after being retained, Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted in negotiating with CBP and numerous trademark owners proving that our clients detained goods (collectively valued over $1,000,000.00) were legitimate, receiving either consent TM holder, and/or convincing CBP to release legitimate merchandise that should not have been detained.
• After CBP detained our client’s electronic merchandise to verify admissibility with the Department of Transportation (DOT)
  • CBP released the electronic goods after DTL proved the merchandise, LED driving lights, were eligible for an “off road” use exception and DOT providing such confirmation.
• After CBP detained our client’s electronic merchandise to verify the validity of a trademark on the product packaging.
  • Diaz Trade Law proactively communicated with the trademark holder and CBP, who, with the authorization of the trademark holder, permitted the importer to manipulate the merchandise and import the goods saving our client from a costly and lengthy seizure case that potentially exposed our client to CBP penalties.
• After CBP detained our client’s electronic merchandise to verify the validity of a trademark on the product packaging.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s immediate involvement in arguing the product was “confusingly similar” and not counterfeit, DTL persuaded CBP to apply the relief afforded to “confusingly similar” seized merchandise and ultimately CBP permitted the exportation – which is relief that is rarely granted for detained products. DTL saved our client from a seizure case and potential penalties.
• CBP detained 28 containers of our client’s cargo.
  • Diaz Trade Law successfully negotiated with CBP to permit the goods to be reexported and avoid substantial demurrage expenses.

4647 Responses 

• CBP issued our client a CBP Form 4647 – Notice to Mark, because its electronic car accessories labels had both a country of origin marking and a “Designed in the USA” claim (in separate locations on the label).
  • After 48 hours of Diaz Trade Law’s successful escalation and negotiation with the Electronic Center of Excellence and Expertise, CBP granted a rarely used marking waiver permitting the merchandise to be imported as is, saving our client both money and time.
• CBP issued our client a CBP Form 4647 – Notice to Mark, because over 1,000 electronic car accessory units did not bear a country of origin marking.
  • Diaz Trade Law successfully and efficiently guided our client through the marking process. Ultimately, the goods were marked and authorized for distribution within recording timing – less than 10 days from the issuance of the 4647, saving our client both money and time.
• CBPO’s at Port Everglades detained two of our client’s shipments and issued two separate CBP Form 4647s – Notices to Mark because the imported merchandise valued at $98,744.00 did not bear a country of origin marking.
  • Diaz Trade Law successfully and efficiently guided our client through the marking process. Ultimately, the goods were marked and authorized for distribution with record timing – within 7 days from the issuance of the 4647, saving our client both money and time.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in responding to CBP’s Notice to Redeliver (CBP Form 4647) and provided CBP confirmation that the intellectual property rights displayed on the goods was authorized and our client’s merchandise was released in record timing!

Successfully Assisted Numerous Importers Battle Alleged Intellectual Property Rights Violations

• Our client’s merchandise was seized by CBP due to an alleged trademark violation.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, CBP issued a decision authorizing our client to relabel and export its legitimate merchandise.
• CBP detained several shipments of our client’s cargo for both Country of Origin (COO) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) reasons.
  • Diaz Trade Law advocated for our client and within less than one week convinced CBP to release our client’s legitimate merchandise detained at numerous ports of entry nationwide.
• Our client’s designer handbags were seized by CBP due to an alleged counterfeit violation.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, proving that the handbags were legitimate, CBP released our client’s legitimate merchandise.
• CBP detained our client’s goods valued at $98,744.00 for an alleged IPR validation.
  • Our firm immediately communicated with the appropriate CBP CEE and submitted evidence supporting the legitimacy of the imported goods requesting their immediate release. The CBP CEE agreed with our request and recommended the local port release the shipment, saving our client from a costly and lengthy seizure case.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully negotiated with CBP on behalf of an aftermarket car part importer to permit the exportation of goods detained for alleged IPR violations, saving the importer from a costly and lengthy seizure and potential penalty.
• Our client imported electronic merchandise which contained a trademark-violating processing system.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s successful intervention, Diaz Trade Law received authorization from the trademark holder to permit the violative components to be removed and destroyed, and the larger shell merchandise to be imported in its current form. CBP agreed to these terms, and issued a disposition order authorizing the manipulation and release of the goods as Diaz Trade Law had requested.

Successfully Mitigated Penalty Actions Issued by CBP to our Clients 

• For importing noncompliant Wood Packaging Material:
  • $91,714 mitigated to 3% of penalty to $2,751.42, saving our client $88,962
  • $69,900 mitigated to 3% of penalty to $6,990, saving our client $60,000
  • $28,478 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $2,847, saving our client $25,631
  • $27,857 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $2,786, saving our client $25,071
  • $19,980.00 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $1,998, saving our client $17,982
• For filing incorrect Electronic Export Information (EEI)
  • $14,194 mitigated down to $500 (the best possible relief)!
  • $14,194 mitigated to 10% of penalty to $1500, saving our client $12,694

CBP 28 / CBP 29 Responses / CBP Investigations and Rejections

• Our client received a CBP 28 for a U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement verification.
  • After Diaz Trade Law filed a successful response proving the imported goods were eligible for preferential duty-free treatment, CBP closed the 28 with a positive CBP 29 (Notice of Action).
• Our client received a CBP 28 Request for Information from U.S. Customs to verify GSP eligibility.
  • After Diaz Trade Law submitted a substantive response proving the GSP claim was valid, CBP issued a CBP 29 determining that the merchandise qualifies for GSP and no duties are owed to CBP!
• Our client received a Request for Information (CBP 28) from CBP.
  • Diaz Trade Law filed a 28 response which included a Prior Disclosure. The 28 was closed out, and the disclosure was accepted by CBP resulting in no 1592 penalties being issued to our client.
• CBP physically inspected our client’s cargo at the time of entry and identified that the commercial invoice and packing slip submitted to CBP did not include one model number included in the cargo. Diaz Trade Law immediately negotiated with CBP to accept an updated invoice and packing list. CBP accepted and released the complete cargo with no further enforcement action taken, saving our client costly demerge fees and other expenses.
• CBP rejected and refused an importation of tires because CBP alleged the importer did not have a right to make entry. After three uphill battles with CBP and DTL’s strategic recommendation to change the import transaction model, the importer was successfully able to act as IOR and its merchandise was admitted into the US.

USTR/China Tariffs

• Diaz Trade Law assisted over 100 importers in filing complaints with the Court of International Trade challenging Section 301 tariffs imposed for imported goods under for List 3 and List 4a, requesting full refunds.
• Diaz Trade Law filed numerous exclusions for goods subject to the Section 301 List 3 and List 4. USTR agreed and granted our client’s exclusion!
• Numerous clients that were subject to 301 duties used Diaz Trade Law to actively monitor 301 exclusions to ensure they were notified when refunds were a possibility. Diaz Trade Law assisted with not only actively monitoring the relevant exclusions, but also interpreting the applicability, and fighting for refunds via the Protest or PSC process. CBP has accepted numerous Protests, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of refunds were sent to our clients!
• As a result of Diaz Trade Law’s closely monitoring Section 301 China tariff exclusions, Diaz Trade Law found an applicable exclusion for our client to use and filed two Protests with CBP requesting that CBP refund the China tariffs paid. Our client’s protests were approved by CBP, resulting in a refund of $64,678.00.

Export Compliance and Enforcement Mitigation Assistance

• Diaz Trade Law is actively assisting exporters:
  • Vetting proposed export transactions
  • Providing voluntary self-disclosures to Census and OFAC
  • Developing an effective export compliance plan
  • Developing export compliance training
  • Mitigation and corrective action
  • Presenting export report cards to clients based upon an analysis of ACE data
  • Analyze export trade data
  • With mitigation of export seizures and penalties
• Our client needed urgent assistance to ensure it understood the requirements to properly export hazardous materials. Diaz Trade Law successfully and expeditiously secured Competent Authority Approvals for the hazardous material from the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as well as the Competent Authority of Turkey and Finland.

OFAC/FAA/HSI 

• Our client’s incoming wire payments of $842,918.92 from Venezuela were blocked by its U.S. bank for possible violations of U.S. sanctions laws.
  • After Diaz Trade Law filed a specific license application with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), OFAC issued a specific license authorizing the legitimate funds to be unblocked and returned to our client.
• Our client was being investigated by FAA as a result of a hazardous materials incident.
  • As a result of Diaz Trade Law’s successful involvement, the FAA closed the matter with an informal action!
• Our client was being investigated by HSI for possible criminal liability.
  • After Diaz Trade Law’s intervention, HSI closed its investigation into our client.

 Protests

• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in filing two Protests with CBP. These approvals saved our client over $600,000!!
• After Diaz Trade Law’s successful Protest of CBP’s AD/CVD bills, our client’s protest was approved by CBP, saving our client over $200,000!!

Binding Rulings

• Diaz Trade Law successfully requested and received binding rulings for numerous clients confirming:
  • the correct country of origin for its prospective imported merchandise.
  • the correct harmonized tariff schedule (HTSUS) for its imported merchandise.
  • both the origin of their merchandise and appropriate CBP country of origin marking
  • the applicability of a free trade agreement.

Assisted Numerous Importers in Filing Prior Disclosures and Voluntary Self-Disclosures Accepted by CBP 

• Diaz Trade Law successfully submitted a perfected prior disclosure for underlying classification, valuation, quantity, and 301/China tariff errors. While reviewing ACE data, we identified offsets for the duties owed to CBP. Ultimately, CBP agreed with our assessment and accepted our prior disclosure and tender, resulting in a refund of over $25,000 to our client and ensuring no future penalties would be assessed for our client’s past importing errors.
• After discovering Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing errors made by one of our clients, Diaz Trade Law assisted our client in proactively filing a Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) with the U.S. Census Bureau and assisting our client in fixing all past errors. The VSD filing was accepted and resulted in the U.S. Census Bureau closing out the matter without penalties being assessed.
• On behalf of a client, Diaz Trade Law filed a voluntary disclosure with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), disclosing potential sanctions violations.
  • Diaz Trade Law worked proactively with OFAC and received this “No Action letter” with no penalties assessed to our client.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in filing a Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) with the U.S. Census Bureau for violations of the Foreign Trade Regulations.
  • Diaz Trade Law proactively worked with the Census Bureau and corrected past filing errors. The VSD was successfully closed out with no penalties assessed.
• Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client in filing a Prior Disclosure. CBP accepted the prior disclosure with no 1592 penalties being assessed!

Bonded Warehouse

• After Diaz Trade Law’s successful application, our client’s Bonded Warehouse Application was approved!
• After its bonded warehouse was activated by CBP, our client realized it wanted to change the total square footage. Diaz Trade Law successfully assisted our client alter its customs bonded warehouse space.

Successfully Assisted Numerous Importers in Various Seizure Cases 

• CBP seized our client’s vehicle after believing it could have been used to import illegal substances. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition proving our client’s innocence, CBP released the vehicle with no penalty assessed
• $20,868.81 of our client’s currency was seized by CBP. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, $19,868.81 was returned to our client!
• $15,795 of our client’s currency was seized by CBP. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful petition, $14,795 was returned to our client!
• $12,157.95 worth of jewelry was seized by Customs after our client failed to declare it. After Diaz Trade Law’s successful Petition, CBP released the jewelry within 22 days.

Awards

• In 2021, Diaz Trade Law founder Jennifer Diaz was again Chambers ranked in International Trade: Customs – USA – Nationwide

Publications

Key publications written by Diaz Trade Law in 2021 were:

• Bloomberg Law, Introduction to U.S. Export Controls: Part 2, November, 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China, October 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Incoterms 2020, May 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Submitting Voluntary Self-Disclosures to Bureau of Industry & Security, May 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to Census, April 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to OFAC, April 2021.
• Bloomberg Law, U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor, January 2021.
• Customs and International Trade Bar Association, An Overview of China’s New Export Controls Regime,
• Customs and International Trade Bar Association, COVID-19’s Impact on 2020 Trade Flows,

Customized Training Programs & Webinars

Key compliance programs taught by Diaz Trade Law in 2021 were:

• Intellectual Property Rights and Customs – Amazon Brand Registry
• CTPAT Program: Is CTPAT a Right Fit
• Successfully Navigating the U.S. Customs Detention and Seizure Process
• How to Navigate FDA Enforcement Action: Detentions, Warning Letters, and Import Alerts
• Requests For Information (CBP Form 28) and Prior Disclosures
• How to Build and Maintain an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• How to Build and Maintain an Effective Export Compliance Plan
• Importing Food in Compliance With U.S. FDA and Surviving A FSVP Audit
• Importing Medical Devices in Compliance With U.S. FDA
• 6 Months In – Insights on Biden & Congress on Trade
• Is it a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? FDA Enforcement Actions
• ACE: Auditing Your Export History
• ACE: Auditing Your Import History
• Introduction to Export Controls
• Importing 101 – Introduction to U.S. Customs
• Anti-Circumvention / EAPA / Dumping Duties & the Spreadability of Cases (Coated Paper)
• Other Trade Remedies 101 – Every Administration has a Favorite!
• Basics on AD/CVD
• Cleaning for Covid-19 – Importing Cleaning Products: Who Regulates You?
• Forecasting the Next 4 Years of Biden on Trade

Diaz Trade Law values you and appreciates your trust in us to be your Customs and International Trade Law Expert! Contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com to schedule your consultation or customized training today.

BIS

• BIS Publishes Report on Effect of Uranium Imports on National Security
• BIS Publishes First Military End User List

Bloomberg

• Bloomberg Law – Introduction to U.S. Export Controls: Part 2
• Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China
• Incoterms 2020
• Submitting Voluntary Self-Disclosures to Bureau of Industry & Security
• Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to Census
• Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to OFAC
• U.S. Customs Targets Use of Forced Labor

Customs and International Trade Bar Association 

• New CITBA Article – An Overview of China’s New Export Controls Regime
• COVID-19’s Impact on 2020 Trade Flows

China

• OFAC Issues Clarifying Guidance on Communist Chinese Military Companies Sanctions
• Hong Kong’s Initiates Dispute Regarding U.S.-Origin Marking Requirement
• CBP Issues WRO on Cotton, Tomato, & Downstream Products Made in Xinjiang
• Future of First Sale Rule in Question

Crypto

• OFAC Targets Russian Crypto Platform
• Why China’s Cryptocurrency Miners are Moving to Texas

Covid-19

• Recent Government Data Indicates that Florida Trade is Rebounding Fast Despite Pandemic Hit

Export

• What are Routed Export Transactions?
• Understanding the Computer Export License Exception (APP)
• Understanding the GOV Export License Exception
• Vegas Woman Charged with Iran Sanctions Violations
• Do’s and Don’ts of Filing a Commodity Jurisdiction Request
• Understanding Strategic Trade Authorization
• Building a Strong Export Compliance Plan
• Commerce Department Issues Rule Securing Digital Supply Chains Against Foreign Adversaries

Import/CBP

• UK Joins Kimberley Diamond-Trading Process
• FTC issues a Record Breaking $1.2 Million Penalty
• Customs Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Broker Continuing Education – Comments Open
• Comment Now – CBP Proposed Rule on Country of Origin Determination for Imports under USMCA
• 9801.00.10: Updated Requirements for Returned Goods
• Customs Valuation 101
• Breaking News – New Federal Law Expands Furniture Flammability Testing Standard

AD/CVD

• New Antidumping Petition Against Imports of Certain Honey Products
• New AD/CVD Petition Against Imports of Certain Chinese Mobile Access Equipment

Buy America

• Biden Executive Order Strengthens Buy American Government Procurement Laws

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Trading in Wildlife? You May Need a License

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

• FDA Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Final Order for OTC Sunscreen Safety
• FDA OPENS NEW FSVP PORTAL FOR IMPORTERS
• FDA Further Extends UFI Flexibility For Food Facility Registrations
• OTC Drug Manufacturers are Required to Pay FDA Facility User Fees by May 10, 2021
• FDA Import Alert on Mexican Hand Sanitizer
• Comment on FDA’s Proposed Rule – French Dressing

USITC

• An Introduction to Safeguard Investigations

OFAC 

• Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Conflicting U.S. & EU Sanctions Policies Towards Iran
• OFAC Sanctions & Licensing
• The CAPTA List – An Introduction
• Treasury Imposes Further Sanctions on Iran
• Trump Administration Designates Cuba State Sponsor of Terrorism

Section 301

• Want Your 301 Exclusion Back? Comment Now!
• Potential Relief from China Tariffs Coming
• 301 Exclusion Extensions for COVID-19 Related Products
• Proposed 25% Tariffs on Section 301 Digital Service Taxes – Comment Now
• USTR Announces Special 301 Review – Comments Due January 28
• US Imposes Additional Tariffs on EU Goods
• USCIT Invalidates 232 Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Derivatives

Podcasts

• 3-Part Podcast Miniseries – Importing, Exporting, and AD/CVD

Trade Snapshots

• Customs and Trade Law Snapshot
• Customs and Trade Law Weekly Snapshot

USDA 

• Understanding Organic Equivalency Arrangements
• USDA National Organic Program – Enforcement & Compliance Overview

Webinar

• Want Customs to Police Your IPR at all 328 Ports of Entry?
• Customs Classification – A Key Component of an Import Compliance Manual
• Keysight Technologies Pays $6.6M to State Department for Export Violations
• Food Importers: How to Import Food Compliantly & Survive a FSVP Audit
• Don’t Let FDA Target Your Medical Device Company
• Insight on Last 6 Months of Biden/Congress on Trade
• Diaz Trade Law Invites the Trade Community to Two Free Webinars this Summer!
• Don’t be a Target, Learn Best Practices to Mitigate FDA Enforcement
• ACE: Auditing Your Export History
• ACE: Auditing Your Import History
• Exporting 101 – Introduction to Export Controls
• Anti-Circumvention, EAPA, Dumping Duties & the Spreadability of Cases
• Cleaning for COVID-19 – Importing Cleaning Products: Who Regulates You?
• REGISTER TODAY! NEI Accredited Webinar Importing 101 – Introduction to U.S. Customs
• Biden Administration Commits to Modernizing Regulatory Review

If you have any questions on the topics above, contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com.

The EO directs on the federal agencies to continue to assist States with not only “taking administrative actions to provide flexibility regarding burdensome requirements that stood in the way of implementing the most effective strategies to stop the virus’s spread”; but to continue to “remove barriers to the greatest engine of economic prosperity the world has ever known:  the innovation, initiative, and drive of the American people.”

The EO pushes businesses, especially small businesses, to the forefront of recovery by directing federal agencies to act in manner that will instill confidence during the re-opening phase. To meet this directive, federal agencies are charged to provide clear guidance on discretionary policies and laws, acknowledge businesses (such as importers and exporter) regulatory compliance efforts during the rapid change of environment, and apply principles of fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication to individual cases.

Broadly the EO orders the federal agencies, to address our current economic emergency by “rescinding, modifying, waiving, or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery.”

The EO mandates the federal agencies to execute the following directives (this is not an exhaustive list):

Rescission and waiver of regulatory standards: 

• Identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery.
• Consider taking appropriate action to temporarily or permanently rescind, modify, waive, or exempt persons or entities from those inhibiting requirements.
• Consider exercising appropriate temporary enforcement discretion or appropriate temporary extensions of time for the purpose of promoting job creation and economic growth.

Compliance assistance for regulated entities:

• Consider policies of enforcement discretion that decline enforcement against persons and entities that have attempted in reasonably good faith to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory standards.
• Consider a situation in which a person or entity makes a reasonable attempt to comply with and discretion guidance to be a rationale for declining enforcement described above.
• Non-adherence to guidance shall not by itself form the basis for an enforcement action by a Federal agency.

 Fairness in Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication

• Consider the principles of fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication, which include in part,
  • Administrative enforcement should be prompt and fair.
  • The Government should provide favorable relevant evidence to the subject of an administrative enforcement action.
  • Penalties should be proportionate, transparent, and imposed based on consistent lawful standards.
  • Administrative enforcement should be free of coercion.
  • Liability should be imposed only after notice and an opportunity to respond.
  • Administrative enforcement should be free of unfair surprise.
  • Agencies must be accountable for their administrative enforcement decisions.

Contact our Customs and International Law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830, to discuss this new Executive Order and how it applies to you.

On March 18, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) focused on Prioritizing and Allocating Health and Medical Resources to Respond to the Spread of COVID-19. This EO stems from authority granted under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) and seeks to “ensure our healthcare system is able to surge capacity and capability to respond to the spread of COVID-19.”

Two days later in a press briefing, President Trump formally announced that the federal government had begun to use the DPA, as previously stated in the EO to direct US companies to shift their focus on producing emergency supplies of protective masks and other necessary medical devices.

What is the Defense Production Act?

The Defense Production Act (DPA) was initially enacted in 1950 during the Korean war to grant the president the authority to direct what the private sector can produce in the interest of national defense. If the DPA is invoked by the president, federal agencies have the authority to direct domestic industrial entities to produce essential goods and materials necessary for national defense.

Through this Act, the US Department of Defense has historically requested private companies to assist in military readiness, but the Act has been amended over time to broaden the scope beyond that to include essential goods and materials needed for recovery and response to natural hazards and other national emergencies. President Trump EO from March 18, 2020 invoked this Act which had three sections detailing how it would come into effect.

FEMA’s Temporary Halt

On April 10, 2020, drawing authority from the DPA, multiple EOs, and the memorandum, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a temporary final rule to allocate certain scarce or threatened materials for domestic use, so that these materials may not be exported from the United States without explicit approval by FEMA. Until August 10, 2020, no shipments of the five types of personal protective equipment (PPE), specified below, may be exported from the United States without explicit approval by FEMA.

The rule covers five types of personal protective equipment (PPE):

1. N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators, including devices that are disposable half-face-piece non-powered air-purifying particulate respirators intended for use to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer to help reduce wearer exposure to pathogenic biological airborne particulates;
2. Other Filtering Facepiece Respirators (e.g., those designated as N99, N100, R95, R99, R100, or P95, P99, P100), including single-use, disposable half-mask respiratory protective devices that cover the user’s airway (nose and mouth) and offer protection from particulate materials at an N95 filtration efficiency level per 42 CFR 84.181;
3. Elastomeric, air-purifying respirators and appropriate particulate filters/cartridges;
4. PPE surgical masks, including masks that cover the user’s nose and mouth and provide a physical barrier to fluids and particulate materials; and
5. PPE gloves or surgical gloves, including those defined at 21 CFR 880.6250 (exam gloves) and 878.4460 (surgical gloves) and such gloves intended for the same purposes.

What is the Process to Export these Products?

The rule stipulates that CBP, in coordination with other appropriate officials, is to notify FEMA of any intended export of covered materials. According to the temporary final rule, the process is as follows:

• Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will notify FEMA of any intended exports of the restricted PPE.
• CBP would then temporarily detain the export while the FEMA administrator decides whether to return the shipment for domestic use or issue a rated order for or allow the export of part or all of the shipment.
• The FEMA administrator makes a decision within a reasonable time frame after CBP notifies them of the intended export.
• If it is decided the shipment is needed for domestic use, FEMA will purchase the shipment.

Allocation of Intended PPE Exports

In making such determination, the Administrator may consult other agencies and will to consider the totality of the circumstances, including:

(1)The need to ensure that scarce or threatened items are appropriately allocated for domestic use
(2) Minimization of disruption to the supply chain, both domestically and abroad
(3) Circumstances surrounding the distribution of the materials and potential hoarding or price-gouging concerns
(4) Quantity and Quality of the materials
(5) Humanitarian considerations
(6) International relations and diplomatic considerations

Exemption:

An exemption exists for U.S. manufacturers that meet the following criteria:

1. The U.S. manufacturer has a continuous export agreement in place since at least January 1, 2020.
2. At least 80 percent of the manufacturer’s domestic production was distributed in the US in the preceding 12 months

It is important to note that exporters can NOT make this determination on their own and must apply to FEMA for exemption. If FEMA determines that a shipment falls within this exemption, such materials may be exported without further review. However, even if you qualify for the exemption, FEMA can waive this exemption if the Administrator deems it necessary or appropriate for the promotion of national defense.

Additional Exemptions?

The rule also states that pursuant to 44 CFR 328.102, if deemed necessary for national defense, the Administrator may announce any of the exemptions listed by notice in the Federal Register at his discretion. However, he may waive any of these exemptions, and if CBP believes that someone is intentionally taking advantage of these exemptions, they may detain a shipment and forward information to FEMA for determination. Below are the additional exemptions:

1. Shipments of PPE to US Commonwealths and Territories, Including Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are NOT ‘exports’.
2. Exports of Covered Materials by Non-profit or Non-governmental Organizations that are Solely for Donation to Foreign Charities or Governments for Free Distribution (Not Sale) at their Destination(s).
3. Intracompany Transfers of Covered Materials by US Companies from Domestic Facilities to Company-Owned or Affiliated Foreign Facilities.
4. Shipments of Covered Materials that are Exported Solely for Assembly in Medical Kits and Diagnostic Testing Kits Destined for U.S. Sale and Delivery
5. Sealed, Sterile Medical Kits, and Diagnostic Testing Kits Where Only a Portion of the Kit is Made Up of One or More Covered Materials That Cannot Be Easily Removed Without Damaging the Kits.
6. Declared Diplomatic Shipments from Foreign Embassies and Consulates to their Home Countries. These May be Shipped via Intermediaries (Logistics Providers) but are Shipped from and Consigned to Foreign Governments.
7. Shipments to Overseas U.S. Military Addresses, Foreign Service Posts (e.g., Diplomatic Post Offices), and Embassies.
8. In-Transit Merchandise: Shipments in Transit through the United States with a Foreign Shipper and Consignee, Including Shipments Temporarily Entered into a Warehouse or Temporarily Admitted to a Foreign Trade Zone.
9. Shipments for Which the Final Destination is Canada or Mexico
10. Shipments by or on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government, including its Military.

FEMA will require a letter of attestation to be submitted via to certify the purpose of the shipment for exemptions (2), (3), (4), (8), and (9), above. Reach out to DTL for any concerns you have regarding how to file this letter of attestation.

Potential Penalties

The FEMA administrator may apply for a preliminary, permanent, or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order to enforce compliance. Any violations are subject to penalties available under section 103 of the DPA. The criminal and civil penalties are a potential $10,000 fine and/or one year of imprisonment. Penalties under 18 U.S.C. 554 are also applicable and criminal with a potential 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

The FEMA administrator has authority under section 705 of the DPA, with adequate scope and purpose, to:

• Conduct investigations;
• Request information or testimony; and
• Inspect records or premises;

The administrator, with their judgment, would determine if any person has engaged or is about to engage in acts or practices to violate any provisions of the temporary rule to proceed accordingly with penalties.

On April 9, 2020, CBP published a memorandum superseding the one published on April 4^th. This memorandum serves as an updated guidance for the allocation of certain scarce or threatened health and medical resources for domestic use. The focus of the allocation is on commercial quantities defined as shipments valued at $2,500 and containing more than 10,000 units of gloves, masks, or other commodities referenced above. In the Memo, CBP noted that the following circumstances also qualify for an exclusion to the export ban:

• Exports to Canada or Mexico;
• Exports to U.S. Government entities such as U.S. military bases overseas;
• Exports by U.S. Government agencies;
• Exports by U.S. charities;
• Exports by critical infrastructure industries for the protection of their workers;
• Exports by the 3M Company;
• Express or Mail Parcels that do not meet the commercial quantity definition above;
• In-transit shipments.

Export shipments that do not meet the exclusions would receive document reviews and physical examinations conducted at the port to determine if the commodity fits the definition of scarce or threatened. Only when commodity expertise is required should there be consultation with the COVID-19 Cargo Resolution Team.

Diaz Trade Law specializes in customs and international trade matters. Our Customs and International Trade Law attorneys are available at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a press release confirming is sent three warning letters to companies that sell oils, tinctures, capsules, “gummies,” and creams containing cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical compound derived from the cannabis plant. While the warning letters are not made publicly available, the FTC advised the warning letters were sent because the companies were advertising their CBD products could treat or cure serious diseases and health conditions, in violation of both the FTC Act (as well as U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) laws and regulations.

FTC’s mission is to “Protect consumers and competition by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices through law enforcement, advocacy, and education without unduly burdening legitimate business activity.” As part of its regular monitoring of health-related advertising claims, the FTC issued the three warning letters for advertisements of CBD products claiming to treat or cure serious diseases and health conditions. The letters warn that selling CBD products without such substantiation could violate the FTC Act and may result in legal action that could result in an injunction and an order to return money to consumers.

One of the CBD advertisements described the product with claims such as, “work like magic … to relieve even the most agonizing pain” better than prescription opioid painkillers; To bolster its claims that CBD has been “clinically proven” to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, and colitis, the company states it has participated in “thousands of hours of research” with Harvard researchers.

Another company’s website claims that CBD products are proven to treat autism, anorexia, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, MS, fibromyalgia, cancer, and AIDS. The company also advertises CBD as a “miracle pain remedy” for both acute and chronic pain, including pain from cancer treatment and arthritis.

The third company’s website promotes CBD gummies as highly effective at treating “the root cause of most major degenerative diseases, including arthritis, heart disease, fibromyalgia, cancer, asthma, and a wide spectrum of autoimmune disorders.” The company also claims its CBD cream relieves arthritis pain and that its CBD oil may effectively treat depression, PTSD, epilepsy, heart disease, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and asthma.

FTC has instructed the companies to respond to FTC’s concerns within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter confirming the claims are backed by scientific research. FTC alleges that CBD companies making drug claims on their products are subject to potential violations of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 45(a) and 52, which typically carry a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

The FTC in conjunction with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued three similar letters earlier this year to three other CBD companies for alleged violation of FDA regulation and FTC regulations. It is important to note, both FDA and FTC regulate not only the product, but, also all ancillary advertisements, including websites

Under FDA’s Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, products are drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1), because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and/or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. In the case of the CBD companies at issue, blatant claims to treat a disease are “drug” claims. When there is not a current over the counter drug monograph (or rulemaking process) for CBD (which there is not), then the products are considered “unapproved new drugs” sold in violation of sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)).

The federal agencies seek to prevent unproven medical claims regarding CBD from flooding commercial markets. Diaz Trade Law has helped countless small, medium, and big businesses with FTC and FDA compliance. Contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com to discuss how to ensure your CBD products remain on the shelves and not subject to an FTC and/or FDA warning letter.