Customs 10+2 Initiative
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.11.08
Importers face a new filing obligation arising before the entry documents are filed, and indeed before merchandise is even loaded into a container: a recent Customs proposal would mandate the submission of an Importer Security Filing ("ISF") 24 hours prior to container loading. The ISF would require ten data fields, including:
(1) Manufacturer (or supplier) name and address
(2) Seller (by owner) name and address
(3) Buyer (or owner) name and address
(4) Ship-to name and address
(5) Container stuffing location
(6) Consolidator (stuffer) name and address
(7) Importer of record number/foreign trade zone applicant identification number
(8) Consignee number(s)
(9) Country of origin
(10) Commodity Harmonized Tariff Schedule number
Customs is accepting comments on the proposal, known as the "10 + 2 Rule," until March 18, 2008. To date, the trade has been critical of the proposal because compliance with the ISF filing requirements will alter the way many companies do business. Creating new data gathering systems will be a significant burden, and many transactions (particularly CIF sales, which would make compliance with the rule difficult) now will require entirely new commercial arrangements.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
