New Requirements for Importing Footwear Into Mexico
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP / http://www.gdlsk.com/knowledge/325-new-requirements-for-importing-footwear-into-mexico.html
The Mexican government recently published a decree aimed at combating the undervaluation of footwear and circumvention of existing antidumping orders.
The most significant measures in the decree are as follows:
1. The previously published duty phase-out on imported footwear will be put on hold for at least four years;
2. Footwear imported into Mexico may only be cleared at one of the following locations: the Mexico City airport, Ciudad Hidalgo, Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Nuevo Laredo, Tijuana or Veracruz ;
3. Creation of a registry of footwear importers;
4. The establishment of reference (floor) prices;
5. Establishment of an import permit system; and
6. Initiation of additional antidumping and safeguard investigations (possibly resulting in higher duty rates, quantitative restrictions, etc.).
Details regarding the implementation of items 3-6 will be clarified in future notices.
OTEXA - Announcements
Office of Textiles and Apparel / http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/
09/04/14 - Press Release for Textiles and Apparel for July 2014.
U.S. Marshals Seize Drug Products from Flawless Beauty
U.S. Food & Drug Administration / http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm412858.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Various unapproved and improperly labeled drug products that were marketed, sold and distributed via the Internet by Flawless Beauty LLC, of Asbury Park, New Jersey, have been seized by U.S. Marshals at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. These products, including injectable drug products, were marketed, sold and distributed to individuals, retail outlets, health spas and clinics.
The seized products, marketed on websites including, but not limited to, www.flawlessbeautyandskin.com and www.relumins.com include:
- Relumins Advanced Glutathione “kits” and
- Tatiomax Glutathione Collagen Whitening “kits”
Many of the injectable products also include claims to treat scurvy, degenerative brain and liver diseases, and “alcoholic liver diseases.”
None of these products have been proven safe or effective for their intended uses. In addition, unapproved injectable products are of concern because their quality, safety and efficacy have not been reviewed. Further, improper injection practices may result in serious injury, including the transmission of disease.
“Companies have a responsibility to ensure their products are safe for distribution,” said Melinda K. Plaisier, the FDA’s associate commissioner for regulatory affairs. “We have taken action to protect consumers and demonstrate our commitment to their safety by preventing these products from being distributed.”
On May 16, 2014, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services detained the unapproved injectable drug products located at Flawless Beauty.
“To ensure new drugs are safe, effective, and made using quality manufacturing practices, they undergo a rigorous FDA review and approval process,” said Ilisa Bernstein, acting director, Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s. “The FDA is committed to taking action to protect American consumers against companies that circumvent the drug approval process.”
To date the agency has not received direct reports of illnesses or serious side effects related to the seized products. Illnesses or side effects related to the use of these products should be reported to the FDA via MedWatch’s online form or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088. Consumers who experience any unexpected adverse events should also consult a health care professional as soon as possible.
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. FDA also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
CBP Intercepts Giant Millipedes at SFO Mail Facility
U.S. Customs & Border Protection/ http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2014-08-29-000000/cbp-intercepts-giant-millipedes-sfo-mail-facility
SAN FRANCISCO—U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists assigned to the international mail facility at San Francisco International Airport discovered 20 live giant millipedes while inspecting a package marked “toy car model”.
The large package from Germany arrived at the U.S. Postal Service International Service Center at SFO and was routed through an x-ray machine.
A CBPAS noticed an anomaly and selected the package for further inspection.
“Customs and Border Protection officers and agriculture specialists routinely x-ray and inspect packages arriving from foreign locations for contraband and other prohibited items before they are permitted to enter the U.S.,” said Brian J. Humphrey, CBP director of Field Operations in San Francisco. “The agriculture specialists on duty were quick to notice the deception and took the necessary action.”
The package contained a large plastic foam box, which when opened revealed a large mesh bag containing the foot-long millipedes, along with chunks of soil and paper.
The shipment was referred to U.S. Department of Agriculture- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for positive identification Although it is not illegal to import exotic animals, federal agencies such as U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulate such imports and require certain permits and documentation.
This package lacked required import permits and was misrepresented in an attempt to bypass federal regulations. The shipment has been turned over to USDA and was referred to USDA-Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance for further action.
FTC Updates Telemarketer Fees for the Do Not Call Registry as of October 1, 2014
Federal Trade Commission / http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/09/ftc-updates-telemarketer-fees-do-not-call-registry-october-1-2014
The Federal Trade Commission has announced updated fees starting on October 1, 2014, for telemarketers accessing phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
All telemarketers calling consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the Do Not Call Registry to ensure they do not call those who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free, and organizations that are exempt from the Do Not Call rules, such as some charitable organizations, may obtain the entire list for free. Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers.
The access fees for the Registry are being increased as required by the Do‑Not‑Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. Under the Act’s provisions, in fiscal year 2015 (from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015), telemarketers will pay $60, an increase of $1, for access to Registry phone numbers in a single area code, up to a maximum charge of $16,482 for all area codes nationwide, an increase from the previous maximum of $16,228. Telemarketers will pay the same as last year for numbers they subscribe to receive during the second half of the 12‑month subscription period, $30 per area code.
For consumers who want to add their phone number to the Registry, registration is free and does not expire.
The Commission vote authorizing publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the new fees was 5-0. (FTC File No. P034305; the staff contact is Ami Dziekan, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202‑326‑2648)
USITC: News Releases and New Documents
US International Trade Commission / http://www.usitc.gov/?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bgZBTXmigE&feature=player_embedded
A scientific study released recently confirms our worst fears – poachers slaughtered about 100,000 elephants in Africa between 2010 and 2012. This horrific and unsustainable carnage amounts to nearly 7 percent of the population per year – a level that exceeds the natural growth rate of elephant populations.
Last week we unveiled a public service campaign developed with National Geographic designed to educate consumers here and abroad about the devastating impact of the illegal ivory trade on elephants. It will be showing on a giant electronic billboard in New York City’s Times Square during September, sending the message to new audiences in the epicenter of U.S. illegal ivory trade on the East Coast.
Over the past five years, elephant numbers have begun to decline at more than 75 percent of the sites where they still occur.
These populations are in a death spiral. Unless we reverse these appalling trends, most, if not all elephants may vanish from the wild in Africa within a decade.
The real tragedy is that this poaching epidemic is not driven by a need for basic human requirement – food, water, shelter. Instead, African elephants are being massacred in the name of greed and vanity – the desire to have an ivory trinket, no matter the cost.
In response, the United States, led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has developed a multi-prong strategy to work with the international community to fight illegal wildlife trafficking in elephant ivory and other products.
This strategy builds on decades of conservation work on the ground in Africa that began in the 1970s, when international trade restrictions were first implemented to protect elephants. In 1989, we expanded our efforts to support elephant conservation when the African Elephant Conservation Act was passed and the African Elephant Conservation Fund established.
Last year, we crushed six tons of seized illegal ivory to let the world know that the United States will not allow the illegal products of ivory trafficking and poaching to reach the market. And we tightened regulations to limit the amount of illegal ivory coming into and being funneled through the United States.
We’re continuing to help build the capacity and training of law enforcement and game management agencies in African countries to protect their elephant populations and crack down on smuggling rings.
But law enforcement can only take us so far. We can’t ensure the future of elephants unless we can reduce demand for ivory where it is popular.
That’s why this new campaign is so critical. It’s not just about cracking down on criminal gangs of poachers in Africa. It’s about helping people understand that the choices they make as consumers have a direct impact on the demand for ivory.
We’re working in Asia and other large ivory consuming areas to address consumer demand. And the United States is one of the world’s largest markets for these products.
Our window of opportunity to save this species is rapidly closing. But there is still time to act.
We all have a role to play. I hope you’ll check out this campaign and raise your voice for elephants.
G
oogle to Refund Consumers at Least $19 Million to Settle FTC Complaint It Unlawfully Billed Parents for Children’s Unauthorized In-App Charges
Federal Trade Commission / http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/09/google-refund-consumers-least-19-million-settle-ftc-complaint-it
Google Inc. has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint alleging that it unfairly billed consumers for millions of dollars in unauthorized charges incurred by children using mobile apps downloaded from the Google Play app store for use on Android mobile devices. Under the terms of the settlement, Google will provide full refunds – with a minimum payment of $19 million – to consumers who were charged for kids’ purchases without authorization of the account holder. Google has also agreed to modify its billing practices to ensure that it obtains express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for items sold in mobile apps.
The Commission’s complaint against Google alleges that since 2011, Google violated the FTC Act’s prohibition on “unfair” commercial practices by billing consumers for charges by children made within kids’ apps downloaded from the Google Play store. Many consumers reported hundreds of dollars of such unauthorized charges, according to the complaint.
The FTC infographic 'Keeping Up With Kids' Apps', which includes information on 4 things your kids' apps might do but might not tell you, and what you can do at the online app store, on your couch, and on your phone or tablet.
“For millions of American families, smartphones and tablets have become a part of their daily lives,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “As more Americans embrace mobile technology, it’s vital to remind companies that time-tested consumer protections still apply, including that consumers should not be charged for purchases they did not authorize.”
This marks the Commission’s third case concerning unauthorized in-app charges by children. In January, the Commission announced a settlement with Apple Inc., requiring Apple to provide full refunds to consumers who were billed for unauthorized charges by children – paying a minimum amount of $32.5 million – and obtain express, informed consent for in-app charges. And in July, the Commission filed a complaint in federal court against Amazon.com, Inc., similarly seeking full refunds for consumers and an order requiring informed consent for in-app charges.
In-app charges are a component of many apps available from Google Play and can range from 99 cents to $200. In many apps used by children, users are invited to accumulate virtual items that help them advance in the game, though as the FTC’s complaint notes, the lines between virtual money purchases and real money purchases can be blurred. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Google billed consumers for many such charges by children without obtaining account holders’ authorization, leaving consumers holding the bill.
When Google first introduced in-app charges to the Google Play store in 2011, the complaint alleges, Google billed for such charges without any password requirement or other method to obtain account holder authorization. Children could incur in-app charges simply by clicking on popup boxes within the app as they used it.
According to the complaint, in mid- to late 2012, Google began presenting a pop-up box that asked for the account holder’s password before billing in-app charges. The new pop-up, however, did not contain any information about the charge. Google also did not inform consumers that entering the password opened up a 30-minute window in which a password was no longer required, allowing children to rack up unlimited charges during that time.
During this time, many thousands of consumers complained to Google about children making unauthorized in-app charges, according to the complaint. Some parents noted that their children had spent hundreds of dollars in in-app charges without their consent. Others noted that children buying virtual in-game items with real money were unaware they were causing their parents to be billed.
Google employees referred to the issue as “friendly fraud” and “family fraud” in describing kids’ unauthorized in-app charges as a leading source of refund requests, according to the complaint. The complaint further alleges that Google’s practice has been to refer consumers seeking refunds first to the app developer.
The settlement will require Google to provide full refunds of unauthorized in-app charges incurred by children and to modify its billing practices to obtain express, informed consent from consumers before billing them for in-app charges. If the company gets consumers’ consent for future charges, consumers must have the option to withdraw their consent at any time.
The settlement requires Google to contact all consumers who placed an in-app charge to inform them of the refund process for unauthorized in-app charges by children within 15 days of the order being finalized. Google must make these refunds promptly, upon request from an account holder. Should Google issue less than $19 million in refunds to consumers within the 12 months after the settlement becomes final, the company must remit the balance to the Commission for use in providing additional remedies to consumers or for return to the U.S. Treasury.
The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Joshua D. Wright recorded as recused.
The FTC will publish the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through Oct. 6, 2014, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.