United States of America: Bill to strengthen customs enforcement for apparel
Description
Representative Larry Kissell (Democrat of North Carolina) and a bipartisan group of 23 cosponsors introduced on May 25, 2010 the Textile Enforcement and Security Act (TESA) (H.R.5393). The measure, which its supporters call “the first ever textile specific customs enforcement bill,” would substantially increase the scrutiny of imported apparel products and could raise the cost of doing business. The bill was not acted upon before the adjournment of the 111th Congress on September 29, 2010, though the bill could be reintroduced in the 112th Congress (2011-2012).
The subject of customs enforcement is of increasing interest in Congress, where hearings on the matter have been held by the Senate Finance Committee (October 20, 2009) and the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives (May 20, 2010). A representative of the National Council for Textile Organizations (NCTO), one of the primary industry groups supporting TESA, gave testimony at the latter hearing. If Congress develops a new customs reauthorization bill this year that would provide the opportunity for TESA or some of its provisions to become part of the legislation; failing that, the sponsors would need to press either for separate enactment of their bill or find some other germane legislation to which it might be attached. The leadership of the Senate Finance Committee has indicated an interest in developing such a bill later in 2010.
In addition to the NCTO, the bill is supported by the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Textile Association, the American Fiber Manufacturers Association, and the National Cotton Council. NCTO is also looking for potential allies among industries that have won cases under the trade-remedy laws (especially antidumping) but complain that the punitive duties are not being collected. The NCTO representative said that there have been some talks with U.S. honey producers, wire hanger manufacturers, and others about supporting their measure.
Among the provisions of the bill are the following items:
- Requires additional information on affidavits for textiles and apparel imports.
- Establishes a Nonresident Importer Program that makes the resident agent accountable for fraudulent activity involving textile and apparel imports if the nonresident importer is inaccessible.
- Directs the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Treasury to use amounts from the fines and penalties collected from import violations for textiles and apparel to 1) pay for expenses directly related to investigations and 2) reward any person who furnished information on the import violations.
- Instructs the U.S. government to establish an electronic verification program that tracks yarn and fabric inputs in free trade agreements.
- Increases the number of import specialists trained in textile and apparel verifications at the largest U.S. ports that process textile and apparel imports.
- Increases staff positions at Textile and Apparel Policy and Programs division in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) headquarters and retargets them toward trade preference verifications.
- Establishes an Office of Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement within the Department of Justice to carry out all the functions relating to enforcement cases.
- Provides that CBP has the authority to seize fraudulent textile and apparel goods.
- Adjusts bond requirements for high-risk importers of textile and apparel goods.
- Broadens the scope of entities held accountable in the supply chain for intentionally undervalued transactions.
- Mandates the government publish names of companies that intentionally violate the rules of textile and apparel trade agreements.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | No |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the hyperlinked items in the description.
Government Response:
- 532 reads
