« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »
March 21, 2008
Guest Post: Security, Chinese Imports and American Ports: the Current Status of the American C-TPAT Initiative
[Editor's note: The safety of consumer products imported from China now makes national news. But what of national security? Directly after 9/11, news reports on poor security oversight of major American ports flooded the media. Many federal programs, it seemed, were proposed to combat the gaping hole in American armor. Then silence.
To what extent have these programs succeeded? Indeed, no terrorist activity -- or none we know about -- has arrived on American shores via the container yards. Surely it would appear that the federal government has been most successful in deterring hostile activity.
Containers from China may or may not present significant security problems, but due to their number, the perception is, perhaps, too frightening to ignore entirely. We’re grateful to Juli Schwartz of Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O'Hara LLP for today's post on the C-TPAT program with regard to China. C-TPAT stands for Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. For more information on the program, click here.
The firm practices exclusively in the areas of customs and international trade law. Ms. Schwartz was joined in this article by colleagues Elon Pollack, Jason Li and Brian Murphy.]
China signaled its willingness to enter into an MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] on C-TPAT validations in late 2007, following Customs Commissioner Ralph Basham's meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Mu Xinsheng. [Editor's note: “A C-TPAT validation is a process through which the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) C-TPAT program meets with company representatives and visits selected domestic and foreign sites to verify supply chain security measures contained in the C-TPAT participant’s security profile are accurate and are being followed.”]
However, it does not appear that a final agreement has yet been reached. Negotiations are, ostensibly, ongoing, so an announcement later in the year may be forthcoming. Since 2003, however, there has been a cooperative agreement between the United States and China in place with respect to the Container Security Initiative (CSI). As implemented, the program affords CBP [US Customs and Border Protection] limited access to participating ports upon information that certain containers are high risk.
When these identifications are made, CBP may request that General Administration of PRC Customs (GACC) liaisons conduct electronic inspections of U.S. bound cargo. (CBP officials, however, are not allowed to perform law enforcement functions, including such inspections, directly.) The CSI program has been operational in the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen since 2005. See this page.
Initially (for obvious reasons, given China's sensibilities), Chinese officials bristled at requests to permit factory inspections under the auspices of C-TPAT. Partially in response to this reluctance (and partially due to CBP personnel constraints), U.S. Customs developed a pilot program to outsource factory validations in China to private, third party companies that are properly vetted. There is nothing controversial about this program; many companies openly engage in similar in-house practices to secure their supply chains, anyway.
But while this solution may circumvent Chinese concerns about national sovereignty/extraterritoriality, the program remains underutilized; only eleven importers have registered under the pilot program. If China does enter into an agreement on CBP validations with the United States, C-TPAT inspections could potentially become as routine as, say, U.S. Department of Commerce visits made in the course of anti-dumping investigations.
Nonetheless, unless C-TPAT participation becomes mandatory, Chinese suppliers generally have little incentive to comply with C-TPAT requirements -- especially in view of the large number of intermediaries, such as trading companies, involved in China trade. In cases involving large U.S. buyers registered for C-TPAT, such entities have the bargaining power to force its suppliers to allow onsite inspections, but cost allocation (of validation fees, security upgrades, etc.) remains problematic. Anecdotally, the firm has at least one client that has confronted this realization as a result of its experience with C-TPAT.
In short, the prospects for greater C-TPAT acceptance in China are less than rosy. This projection notwithstanding, it is not the case that only those few ocean containers subject to C-TPAT requirements will be under increased scrutiny from U.S. Customs. In January of this year, CBP announced its proposed rule on the Advance Data Elements Project (a.k.a. "10 + 2" Security Filing), in which U.S. importers must supply ten additional data fields through electronic manifest, including, for example, the "container stuffing location." See this page. Under the proposed rule, failure to provide complete and accurate information may result in "no load" instructions.
Given the fluid and -- from the importer's perspective -- nebulous sequence of export processing functions in China, such an onus could pose a considerable challenge to parties on both ends of the transaction.
March 18, 2008
Avoid Easter Eggs -- Lead Paint Contamination Likely
Plastic Easter eggs from China have been found to be contaminated with lead paint.
Why not make your own with non-toxic dye? Fun and educational for both you and the children.
Posted by Richard at 7:28 PM | Comments (0)March 11, 2008
美國聯邦討債法規與個人的權利 (Part 2): 商業債
[Editor's Note: I'm pleased to post the second of a two-part article I wrote for 世界周刊 (World Weekly), the Sunday magazine section of the widely circulated 世界日報 (World Journal). It was originally published on page 80 of the Sunday, February 12, 2008 edition.
The subject is debt collection in the United States -- this portion of the article was written for the Chinese business reader in this country who has uncollected debts and is unaware of the legal methods by which he may pursue them.
Part One on consumer debt may be found here.]
美國聯邦討債法規與個人的權利 (Part 2): 商業討債
柯亦清（Richard Kuslan, Esq.）
追帳是商人最頭痛的事情。貨物已到客戶手上或服務項目已經成功結束了，但客戶無緣無故不付錢。因為我國早就拋棄了「cashsociety」 (以現金為主要付錢方式的社會)且依靠信用來刺激購物，想要擴展的公司不能不讓客戶掛帳。因此﹐賣方必須設好信用查詢制度，向每個信用申請者舉行盡職調查 (due diligence)。
儘管作了信用調查，有時還會有些問題出現。現在讓我們到某家公司老闆辦公室聽聽會議結果：
老闆﹕「壞帳怎麼這麼多﹖用什麼方法無所謂，只要把錢儘快追到手。趕快想辦法! 」
(作生意該符合道德與法律兩種標準。無法符合道德的時候，還是必得遵守法律。有些方法又非道德又非法律，所以老闆最好別叫職員「用什麼方法都行」。更何況老闆本人是負責人!)
助手﹕「沒問題! 我會為公司盡力。」因為他從來沒追過帳，發現自己也無所是從。再加上他對討債之事極反感，也害怕被拒絕，於是開始研究情況。
公司生意包括零售與批發渠道，所以客戶範圍較繁雜。有州內外和國際客戶，有個人消費者，有小店面的零售商，也有規模校大的廠商。對討債來講，各有各的困難。以下是兩個壞帳案子。
公司討消費債
公司讓住在州內的消費者以分期付款方式購貨。付了第一筆以後剩下未付金額達到1500元。令助手驚駭的是，三個月後公司才注意到，第一筆付了以後，一毛錢也沒收到。助手當天與客戶聯繫時，客戶把電話掛斷了，讓助手火大，連續撥五、六通電話，最後聽到電話錄音。
助手大怒說﹕「If I don't get my money, I'll have the police arrest you and put you in jail!」 (你馬上付清，否則我叫警察把你逮捕，送去監獄!) 可惜，助手不曉得客戶是生重病不能工作也沒有收入的老年人。客戶通知了律師（客戶的親戚）有關電話內容。律師認為可能成立訴訟因由就開始研究有關法律。
美國法律體系主要包括聯邦法 (federal law)、州法 (state law)與地方法 (local law)。聯邦法在全國有效，州法與地方法在該州或該地方有效。這就是說，紐約的法庭會引用紐約法來裁判案子，而不會引用其他州的法規。美國公正討債法 (簡稱FDCPA)管制追討消費債的職業商與律師的聯邦法。此限制意味著公司自己職員追討公司被欠的債牽連不到FDCA。所以上述助手直接對公司的客戶追討未付應款與FDCPA無關。但這不是說消費者沒有任何法律上的保障。
由於助手的說話行為粗暴，很可能違反討債以外的州法而成立侵權或刑事訴訟因由。追債必須要保持不達目的決不罷休的態度，但為了避免法律上的問題，要對欠債人講話有分寸，表現出一定的禮貌。
助手討債方法沒成功後，就找到討債公司 (collection agency)辦案子。一般來講，美國職業討債公司收不到錢不收費。討債公司領取與委託公司雙方事先同意所收回債額的百分比為費用，其範圍為一成至五成。實際費用取決於案子的情況，如債的總金額、欠債人的地點、多久以前的債務等條件。通過討債過程還是收回不到壞帳，事情就變得嚴重了。為了進一步進行討債，最好讓律師依法律來解決。
公司討商業債
助手發現欠債的客戶不限於消費者而已。原先位於州內批發商與公司交易原則是每次購貨先付清現金才拿貨。當批發商訂單增大時，批發商要求付款方式為先付一部份現金，餘額等貨物運出60天後付清。因為從前批發商一直作生意可靠，老闆沒那麼擔心。他也認為ceditcheck(信用查詢)不值得花費，就決定不經過查詢就同意了﹐收了總金額的一部份就把貨送出去了。Big mistake! (犯了很大的錯誤!)過了90天，剩下金額的一部份還沒收回。該公司該有信用查詢制度。不經過查詢，風險太大。
討債商沒收到錢就轉交給律師解決。討商業債與消費債的重要區別之一就是所能引用的法律與討債措施不同。討商業債主要牽連到州法，尤其是商法，如合約法等，而且商業債與FDCPA無關。若討消費債，以上所述的消費者享受的特別保護，商業債並沒有。商業欠債人在外州的話，收錢的過程平常需要較長時間而可能導致較高的費用。無論是州內州外，民事訴訟的目的是一樣﹕說服法官下法令 (judgment)強制對方付錢。因為一般訴訟會迅速消耗資本，雙方能夠通過商量得到和解而迴避法院為最有經濟效果。但為了和解而省錢，欠債人可能要讓步並且接受總債額的一部分。在協商方面較有技巧的律師就顯得重要起來。
若得不到和解的話，要好好考慮下一步策略。為了取得法令必須先上法院提出申訴 ( lawsuit)。對方敗訴後才有最終裁定，但還有機會上訴 (appeal)。在某些情況下，上訴駁回了還可以上訴到州最高法院或聯邦法院。有了裁定，法院就會發佈法令。對方不照樣履行，就可以引用州法所認許的強制措施，如留置權 (lien)、扣押(attachment)、資產拍賣(sale of assets)，甚至強制對方公司申請破產等方法。
在上述故事裡，律師剛開始與對方協商。他是否能夠得到理想的結果，就視多種難以控制的因素而定，包括能引用的法律、案子的具體情況、對方的反映與資產、公司老闆的態度、律師自己的商量技術等等。有經驗的律師知道所謂理想的解決就是客戶能夠接受的成果。
© 2008 Law Office of Richard Kuslan LLC
Posted by Richard at 1:58 PM | Comments (0)March 6, 2008
Currency Redux, Again
Once again. Hope springs eternal. But by this time -- after years of negotiations, promises and punditry -- no one should be surprised and none should claim that it will happen soon.
Posted by Richard at 4:13 PM | Comments (0)
