International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 26 - Aug. 30 in case they were missed.
Lacey Act
The Lacey Act and subsequent amendments make it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, or acquire any plant, fish or wildlife obtained in violation of U.S., tribal or foreign law, as well as any injurious wildlife. The law is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and CBP. APHIS has been implementing Lacey Act declaration requirements since 2009. Lacey Act declarations may be filed by the importer of record or its licensed customs broker, and include information on imported item's species name, value, quantity, and country where it was harvested.
A federal judge on Aug. 23 sentenced a woman from Hogansburg, New York, to 18 months in prison for exporting endangered reptiles to Canada, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York. According to the attorney’s office, Olivia Terrance was part of a conspiracy to smuggle over 18,000 endangered and threatened reptiles, including turtles, alligators, iguanas, and chameleons, across the border into Canada in 2009 and 2010. The animals were worth “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Miami-based customs broker pleaded guilty Aug. 23 to Lacey Act violations, after it acted as broker on an entry of caviar but didn’t file the required declaration, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. Data Freight Corporation admitted it didn’t file Fish and Wildlife Service Form 3-177 for 468 grams of Siberian sturgeon caviar that was imported in 2011 and 2012, even though it knew or should have that the declaration was required.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is updating language on two permits to clarify Lacey Act declaration requirements for plant and timber importers. The agency is adding permit condition language to PPQ Form 585 (Permit to Import Timber or Timber Products) and PPQ Form 621 (Protected Plant Permit to Engage in the Business of Importing, Exporting or Re-exporting Terrestrial Plants or Plant Products that are Protected). The forms will now include information about the requirement to submit a Lacey Act Plant and Plant Product Declaration (PPQ Form 505) when importing applicable commodities into the U.S., APHIS said. A list of commodities that currently require a Lacey Act declaration is (here).
An online submission tool for Lacey Act declarations is on its way in late 2013, according to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The Lacey Act Web Governance System (LAWGS) will allow submission of Lacey Act Plant and Product Declarations (PPQ Form 505) electronically online, without needing to mail in a paper declaration, the agency said. The tool will also save commonly used declaration data in templates for “quick and easy future submissions,” said APHIS.
Recent trade-related bills introduced in Congress include:
New certification requirements proposed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) threaten to add new liability issues and costs in the use of customs brokers, said the Express Association of America (EAA) in comments to the CPSC. The EAA joined a slew of other trade associations and companies that voiced major concerns with the proposal at the CPSC (see 13073014). There were numerous objections to the new rules in the comments (here), some of which compared the proposal to the controversial filing requirements imposed under the Lacey Act.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for July 8-12 in case they were missed.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service posted its “illustrative list” of plants that are considered “common cultivars” or “common food crops,” and are therefore exempt from Lacey Act requirements. The definitions for the terms were finalized in a July 9 final rule 13070808). APHIS said wild specimens of plants on the list are not subject to the exemptions, and must still meet Lacey Act requirements. The list isn’t exhaustive, only listing examples of plants for which certain parts, derivatives, and products meet the criteria to be “common cultivars” or “common food crops.” Additional examples may be added if APHIS finds that they qualify, the agency said.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service finalized regulatory definitions for “common cultivars” and “common food crops” excluded from Lacey Act coverage, in an interim final rule set for publication in the July 9 Federal Register. The rule adopts an August 2010 proposal with some changes, including the addition of several definitions intended to clarify several “common cultivar” and “common food crop” terms. The interim final rule is effective Aug. 8, except for some clarifying definitions that are effective Sept. 9.