Sneaky notices

On his Customs Law blog, Lawrence Friedman (Barnes/Richardson, Chicago) describes an upcoming matter in "Requests for Information As Disclosure Terminators":

The issue in question is whether Customs and Border Protection can use the common Request for Information (CF28) or Notice of Action (CF29) as the record of the commencement of an investigation and evidence proving that an importer has received notice of the commencement of an investigation.

This matters for several reasons. Most important, importers who discover violations of certain customs laws may protect themselves from civil penalties (in excess of interest on unpaid duties) by completing a voluntary prior disclosure. In the disclosure, the importer sets out the incorrect and the corrected information, tenders duties owed and probably the interest, and walks away with, we hope, an improved compliance system. But, if the importer is on notice that Customs has already commenced an investigation into the same issue, the importer is stuck and cannot fully benefit from a disclosure.

I recommend reading his discussion of an issue that appears at first glance to be truly arcane but that really matters in terms of dollars for the regulated entities.  Notices of various events are often critical to procedings across the scope of administrative law. When the government is considered to have notified a regulated entity and vice versa can determine results. The situation described in Mr. Friedman's post looks like a good discussion or exam question. EMM