[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 99 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E935-E936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      ON THE TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 19, 2015

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, although I oppose H.R. 644, the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, I rise in support of 
Section 302 of the bill because it wisely allows Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) the flexibility to determine when there is a suspicion 
that goods are counterfeit. The section clarifies that CBP shall 
consult with Intellectual Property (IP) owners and preserves the 
flexibility of customs to first consult as appropriate with the 
importer. However, it does not direct CBP to modify in any particular 
way its procedures regarding notice to importers prior to determining 
whether there is a suspicion that their detained goods are possibly 
counterfeit. This should result in earlier and more accurate decisions 
by CBP and preserve the ability of lawful importers to protect their 
confidential information from disclosure.
  I am aware of cases where importers of genuine material have suffered 
significant and real costs because of CBP suspicions that the material 
was counterfeit. These losses occurred because shipments that were 
detained or seized were ultimately determined to be genuine and 
released long after their arrival and expected delivery dates. For 
example, in one case, a company suffered delays and increased costs for 
over 17 shipments that were seized or intensively examined by CBP over 
a three-month period after which all of the goods were ultimately 
determined to be genuine and were released long after their arrival and 
expected delivery dates. In another case, a company reported one 
shipment was seized and another one was detained for more than 30 days 
before both of these shipments were found to be genuine and were 
released. As a result of these long delays, the importers in each of 
these cases suffered significant costs for storage, brokerage, legal 
fees, product damage, and losses in customer good will.
  I thank Chairman Ryan as well as the other Ways & Means Committee 
members who remain as committed as I am to preventing counterfeit 
merchandise from crossing our borders. I look forward to working with 
them to ensure smooth implementation of this new policy.

[[Page E936]]



                          ____________________