Legislation
Congo Conflict Minerals Provisions Signed into Law
07/21/10 02:45 PM
On
July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into
law The Wall Street Reform
Bill which, at
§1502, contains provisions requiring
publicly-traded and electronic companies such as
Apple, Intel, and HP to annually report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on
whether the columbite-tantalite, casserite,
gold, or wolframite minerals used in companies’
manufacture operations originated in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or an
adjoining country. Companies using potential
conflict minerals in their production will be
required to certify whether their products
contain minerals form conflict mines.
In cases where such conflict minerals do originate in DRC or adjoining country, companies will have to report on the measures taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of such minerals. The bill requires that industry use outside auditors to determine where refiners are conflict-free.
The legislation mandates the Secretary of State to annually compile a map of mineral-rich zones, trade routes, and areas under the control of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and adjoining countries based on data from local and national governments and local and international non-governmental organizations.
These provisions were originally introduced on November 19, 2009, by Rep. Jim McDermott as The Conflict Minerals Trade Act of 2009. Commenting the passage the bill, Rep. McDermott’s office stated that the goal of this bill was to “hold accountable American companies that use minerals in their products from mines that help fund the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).” The bill provides for one-year period prior to implementation of these provisions to enable industries to adequately prepare for these requirements.
In cases where such conflict minerals do originate in DRC or adjoining country, companies will have to report on the measures taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of such minerals. The bill requires that industry use outside auditors to determine where refiners are conflict-free.
The legislation mandates the Secretary of State to annually compile a map of mineral-rich zones, trade routes, and areas under the control of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and adjoining countries based on data from local and national governments and local and international non-governmental organizations.
These provisions were originally introduced on November 19, 2009, by Rep. Jim McDermott as The Conflict Minerals Trade Act of 2009. Commenting the passage the bill, Rep. McDermott’s office stated that the goal of this bill was to “hold accountable American companies that use minerals in their products from mines that help fund the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).” The bill provides for one-year period prior to implementation of these provisions to enable industries to adequately prepare for these requirements.
New Customs Declaration Requirements for Imported Plants and Wood Products
09/16/08 08:39 AM
With
enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Lacey Act was
amended with a purpose to prevent illegal
harvesting and commerce of protected plants and
trees. As amended, the Lacey Act expands the scope
of covered products to include trees in the
definition of a plant, and adding products made
from plants or trees.
Moreover, prior to the amendment, the Lacey Act covered only plants native to the U.S. that are protected by a U.S. State law conserving species threatened with extinction. After the amendment, the Lacey Act extends the scope of coverage to any plants under protection of a U.S. State or any foreign law.
The amended Lacey Act prohibits the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of any plants that were harvested in violation of a U.S. State, or any foreign laws protecting those plants. Furthermore, the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to produce or submit any records that falsely identify any plant.
The Lacey Act, as amended, defines “plant” as any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof, and including trees from either natural or planted forest stands.” Excluded from the definition of “plant” are: (1) common cultivars (except trees) and common food crops; (2) live plants that are to remain, be planted, or replanted; and (3) scientific specimens of plant genetic material to be used for research (with some exceptions).
One new feature of the Lacey Act is the new import declaration requirement. Beginning December 15, 2008, the Lacey Act requires an import declaration for plants and plant products, except for plant-based packaging materials used to pack the merchandise being imported. Such import declaration must contain:
(a) the scientific name of any plant (including the genus and species of the plant contained in the importation);
(b) a description of the value of the importation and the quantity, including the unit of measure, of the plant; and
(c) the name of the country from which the plant was harvested.
The Lacey Act provides that violations may be prosecuted through either civil or criminal enforcement actions. The penalties for knowing violations of the Act may result in civil fines of $10,000 per violation. Criminal penalties under the Act may result in up to five years incarceration. Finally, imports in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture.
Moreover, prior to the amendment, the Lacey Act covered only plants native to the U.S. that are protected by a U.S. State law conserving species threatened with extinction. After the amendment, the Lacey Act extends the scope of coverage to any plants under protection of a U.S. State or any foreign law.
The amended Lacey Act prohibits the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of any plants that were harvested in violation of a U.S. State, or any foreign laws protecting those plants. Furthermore, the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to produce or submit any records that falsely identify any plant.
The Lacey Act, as amended, defines “plant” as any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof, and including trees from either natural or planted forest stands.” Excluded from the definition of “plant” are: (1) common cultivars (except trees) and common food crops; (2) live plants that are to remain, be planted, or replanted; and (3) scientific specimens of plant genetic material to be used for research (with some exceptions).
One new feature of the Lacey Act is the new import declaration requirement. Beginning December 15, 2008, the Lacey Act requires an import declaration for plants and plant products, except for plant-based packaging materials used to pack the merchandise being imported. Such import declaration must contain:
(a) the scientific name of any plant (including the genus and species of the plant contained in the importation);
(b) a description of the value of the importation and the quantity, including the unit of measure, of the plant; and
(c) the name of the country from which the plant was harvested.
The Lacey Act provides that violations may be prosecuted through either civil or criminal enforcement actions. The penalties for knowing violations of the Act may result in civil fines of $10,000 per violation. Criminal penalties under the Act may result in up to five years incarceration. Finally, imports in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture.
House Committee Requests Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty Suspension Bills
02/27/08 02:50 PM
On February 25,
2008,
Chairman Sander M. Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member
Wally Herger (R-CA) of the Subcommittee on Trade
jointly
announced
that the Subcommittee is requesting written
comments for the record from all parties interested
in miscellaneous duty suspension proposals and
corrections to the trade laws.
The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over legislation to amend the U.S. tariff schedule and to make corrections to trade legislation. On November 1, 2007, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Herger requested that all Members who planned to introduce tariff legislation or miscellaneous corrections to the trade laws do so by December 14, 2007. Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Herger are now requesting public comment on those bills listed here and are requesting budget scoring estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The deadline for the public to submit written comments to the Committee is Thursday, April 10, 2008.
After the comment period, the Subcommittee will review all comments and determine which bills should be included in a miscellaneous tariff bill (MTB) package. The Subcommittee will consider the extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively, attract controversy, or are not administrable. The Subcommittee states that,
The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over legislation to amend the U.S. tariff schedule and to make corrections to trade legislation. On November 1, 2007, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Herger requested that all Members who planned to introduce tariff legislation or miscellaneous corrections to the trade laws do so by December 14, 2007. Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Herger are now requesting public comment on those bills listed here and are requesting budget scoring estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The deadline for the public to submit written comments to the Committee is Thursday, April 10, 2008.
After the comment period, the Subcommittee will review all comments and determine which bills should be included in a miscellaneous tariff bill (MTB) package. The Subcommittee will consider the extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively, attract controversy, or are not administrable. The Subcommittee states that,
Instructions for submitting written comments can be found here.The primary purpose of the bill is to help U.S. manufacturers compete at home and abroad by temporarily suspending or reducing duties on intermediate products or materials that are not made domestically, or where there is no domestic opposition. Such reductions or suspensions reduce the costs for U.S. businesses and ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products. The process will look carefully for domestic production and opposition to proposed modifications to the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule.