Upcoming Programs

CITBA Annual Meeting

MAY 11, 2015

2:00 pm - 5:00 pm (Program)

5:30 pm - 7:00 pm (Reception)

U.S. Court of International Trade

One Federal Plaza, New York, New York


The Program will include:


Technology Demonstrations: 2:00 pm- 3:20 pm

Overview Scott Warner, CIT Operations Manager

CBP Presentation:
Judge Mark Barnett, U.S. Court of International Trade
Lawrence Friedman, Partner, Barnes Richardson
Frances Hadfield, Counsel, Crowell & Moring
Justin Miller, Senior Trial Counsel, Department of Justice
Guy Eddon, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice
Russell Semmel, Associate, Neville Peterson LLP

Trade Remedies Presentation:
Judge Claire Kelly, U.S. Court of International Trade
Thomas Beline, Associate, Cassidy, Levy, Kent LLP
Joshua Kurland, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice

Ethics Panel: 3:40 -5:00 Preparing versus Coaching Witnesses
Lewis Tesser, Partner, Tesser, Ryan & Rochman LLP
Renee Gerber, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice 


Following the Program, CITBA will hold its annual meeting and reception at which will be elected the Board of Directors and Officers of the Association. It should provide a great opportunity for CITBA members to socialize with peers and CIT Judges.


Customs Lawyers Association

Exercising Due Diligence on Customs and Trade Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions - Discussion Panel

MAY 14, 2015

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Moot Court Conference Room (in the Lobby)

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004


In this discussion, the panelists will examine due diligence issues that arise before and after a M&A transaction, including common pitfalls the acquiring company should be aware of when attempting to reduce the risk in successor liability.  The panel will be followed by a networking reception.


Don't miss this great opportunity to hear about the latest developments in customs and trade issues involved in M&A.  You'll also get an opportunity to mingle with members of the Customs Lawyers Association and other customs and international trade attorneys!  Details below.


Continuing Legal Education accreditation is pending with the Virginia State Bar for 1.5 hours of credit.  Contact the CLA with any of your CLE questions.


Michael V. Cerny - Partner, Cerny and Associates

Glenyss Ford - Assistant Field Director, Regulatory Audit, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Kelly Herman - Of Counsel, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

Margaret S. Solinger - Corporate Counsel, DuPont



Richard Mojica - Of Counsel, Miller & Chevalier


Beer, wine, hor d'oeuvres, and other light refreshments will be provided.


This is free for CLA members but you must RSVP.  


For Non-CLA members, there is a small fee of $25.  Register at the CLA website: http://www.customslawyersassociation.org/CLAEvents.html


Customs Young Lawyers Committee Networking Event and 

Happy Hour 

MAY 19, 2015

5:30 pm to 7:30 pm

The Donovan Hotel Rooftop Lounge

1155 14th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005


The CITBA Young Lawyers Committee cordially invites you to an informal networking event for an opportunity to connect with other customs and trade law professionals. 


The event is free (cash bar available) and open to all, but kindly RSVP through the following link: 




Past CITBA Events

2015 International Trade Law & Policy Debate

APRIL 28, 2015

2:00 pm - 4:00 pm

International Trade Commission

500 E Street,SW

Washington, DC 20436


Dan Pickard and Dan Porter debated today's most important and controversial international trade law and policy issues from the perspective of U.S. petitioner and respondent, respectively, including developments at the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Commerce, and World Trade Organization (WTO), China's non-market economy (NME) status in 2016, how to address undervalued currencies, trade promotion authority (TPA), free trade agreement negotiations, and overall U.S. trade policy. 


Networking Lunch

FEBRUARY 26, 2015

5th Floor Atrium - E.B.W. Library

Georgetown University Law Center

600 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20001


The CITBA Younger Lawyers Committee hosted a networking lunch to connect attorneys in the early stages of their customs and international trade law careers (graduated from law school after 2000) with one another and with experienced members of the bar.  


Careers in Trade Law

FEBRUARY 19, 2015

5:00 pm - 7:30 pm

Hughes Hubbard &; Reed LLP

1775 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20006


International Trade Update

FEBRUARY 26-27, 2015

Georgetown University Law Center, Hart Auditorium

600 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20001





In This Issue:
Links of Interest:
Stay Connected:
View our profile on LinkedIn


By Tina Potuto Kimble, Scott Warner & Stephen Swindell*

The Govermment, as plantiff in this action to cold neck dutys under 82 U..S>C 182(3)), 
has thee burr end of proving that that plantiff was the improter for porpoises of liability of duty
See, e.g. Untied States v Bits up, 251 F.18 1, 183 (Cir. 8th 1093) (inaction to cover duties, the
govermment prove must that defendent was improper of the good), 91 CIT 1411 (inability fur
duties constitution a personnel debt dude from the imports witch can be discharges lonely by
pavement, uncles retrieved by slaw or regimentation      The Govermment cannot meat this


Ouch, hope that didn't hurt your eyes! Certainly not a pleasant read. While today's
must-have-it-now technology has given us plenty of work-friendly tools like Spell Check and
Auto Correct, sometimes a good old fashioned read-through might save yourself some
embarrassment and the Court a headache or two. 


Courtroom Technology Update

F or those eager to take the courtroom technology plunge or for those who want to do it
again, take a minute or two to check out the new addition to our website, Guidelines for CIT
Courtroom Technology. Not only does it detail what technology is available at the court, but it
also offers guidance on how to make arrangements to use it and best practices when using it!
Also, be sure to check out the presentation on courtroom technology at CITBA's Annual
Meeting on May 11th here at the Court!



* Tina Potuto Kimble is the Clerk of the Court. Stephen Swindell is the Supervisor and Scott Warner is the Operations Manager for Case Management at the Court of International Trade.



In cooperation with the Court of International Trade's Advisory Committee, CITBA is seeking input from members on the use of the court's Reserve Calendar under CIT Rule 83. Please take a moment to complete the short survey you will find at the link below. The responses will be anonymous and the collected data will be shared with the Committee and the Court.

Federal Circuit and CIT Case Summaries

  By Claudia Burke & Stephen Tosini*

Federal Circuit Affirms Court of International Trade's Dismissals of Domestic Producers' Claims for CDSOA Distributions.  Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States [Dyk, Reyna, Chen, J.J.]; Tampa Bay Fisheries [Prost, C.J., Bryson, O'Malley, J.J.].  On April 24, 2015 and April 29, 2015, respectively, in related cases, separate panels of the Federal Circuit issued opinions affirming the Court of International Trade's dismissals of actions brought by domestic producers seeking Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) payments.  Pursuant to the CDSOA, the government annually distributes collected antidumping duties to qualifying domestic producers who had either successfully petitioned the government to issue the relevant antidumping order, or who had formally supported the petition by letter or questionnaire response.  The Federal Circuit rejected appellants' arguments that the CDSOA violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to express support for the antidumping petition to qualify for distributions, holding that challenges to the con­stit­ution­ality of the statute were foreclosed by the court's prior decisions in Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States, 734 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  The court also rejected appellants' argument that, because they had provided certain non-public support to the petitioners, they qualified as "supporter[s]" of the antidumping petitions, holding that, because appellants conceded that they did not indicate support of the relevant antidumping petitions in their questionnaire responses, they did not satisfy the express requirements of the statute. 


Federal Circuit Affirms Commerce's Dumping Determinations Regarding Drill Pipe Green Tubes Produced in China. Downhole Pipe & Equipment, LP, et al. v. United States, et al. [Reyna, Linn, Wallach, JJ.].  On January 29, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce's determination regarding the scope of the dumping investigation of steel pipe for drilling from China.  Appellants, Chinese drill pipe producers, challenged Commerce's decision to include green tube within the scope of the drill pipe order and to calculate domestic support for the investigation.  The Federal Circuit held that Commerce reasonably included green tube of certain physical and chemical composition within the scope of the investigation, and that 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(E) expressly precludes Commerce from reconsidering industry support after an investigation has been initiated.  The court also affirmed Commerce's determination regarding the use of certain surrogate values to value the green tube that is used as an input to Chinese drill pipe. 


Federal Circuit Affirms Commerce's Antidumping Determination on Honey from China. Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co. v. United States [Taranto, Chen, Wallach, JJ.].  On January 30, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision sustaining Commerce's imposition of substantial dumping duties upon Dongtai Peak, a Chinese honey producer.  Dongtai Peak sought to obtain its own separate duty rate, rather than be subject to the China-wide rate.  To obtain its own separate duty rate, Dongtai Peak needed to establish that it was free from Chinese government control.  First, the Federal Circuit held that Commerce had properly exercised its discretion in rejecting Dongtai Peak's extension requests for supplemental responses because the extension requests were submitted after the established regulatory deadline and Dongtai Peak failed to show good cause for an extension.  Because the rejected supplemental responses contained information necessary to determine whether Dongtai Peak was free from government control, the Federal Circuit held that Dongtai Peak failed to make that showing and was, therefore, subject to the China-wide entity rate.  The Federal Circuit also sustained Commerce's application of a dumping margin based upon adverse facts because Dongtai Peak's failure to file an extension request prior to its expiration indicated carelessness. 


Federal Circuit Affirms Commerce's Practice Declining to Treat Antidumping Duties Assessed in Annual Reviews as Ordinary Costs to be Deducted in Dumping CalculationsApex Exports and Falcon Marine Exports Ltd. v. United States [Newman, Clevenger, Dyk, J.J.]  On February 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit held that Commerce reasonably interpreted statutory language requiring it to adjust its antidumping duty calculations for "any additional costs, charges, or expenses, and United States import duties" incident to importing subject merchandise as not requiring deduction of the antidumping duties themselves.  This issue typically arises when foreign exporters act as their own U.S. importers and are thus responsible for paying any antiduamping duties that are ultimately assessed.  The Federal Circuit held that deducting the duties as ordinary shipping expenses would effectively double-count the duties and artificially inflate the exporters' dumping margin. 


Federal Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Countervailing Duty Amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930. GPX International Tire Corporation, et al. v. United States [Dyk, Taranto, and O'Malley, JJ.].  On March 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of the 2012 amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930; the amendment provides that, as of 2006, imports from non-market economy countries, including China, are subject to countervailing duties.  The statutory amendment superseded a prior Federal Circuit holding (GPX Intern. Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) that countervailing duties could not be imposed on Chinese imports.  Appellants, importers and producers of Chinese tires, alleged that the amendment violates the Ex Post Facto and the Due Process Clauses.  In rejecting appellants' argument that the amendment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Federal Circuit explained that it had previously held - in Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co. v. United States, 745 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014), a case decided during the pendency of this appeal - that the amendment does not violate that clause.  The court further held that the amendment is supported by a rational basis, and therefore does not violate the Due Process clause. 


Court of International Trade Dismisses Furniture Manufacturers' Claims for CDSOA DistributionsEthan Allen Global, Inc. v. United States; Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United States; Standard Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States [Stanceu, C.J.].  On December 31, 2014, the Court of International Trade issued judgments dismissing substantially identical actions brought by three domestic furniture manufacturers seeking payments pursuant to the CDSOA.  The CDSOA requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to annually distribute to qualifying domestic producers the import duties collected from the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China.  The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the CDSOA violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to express support for the antidumping petition to qualify for distributions, holding that challenges to the constitutionality of the statute were foreclosed by the Federal Circuit's decisions in Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States, 734 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that they qualified as "supporter[s]" of the antidumping petition, holding that the CDSOA required any "supporter" to have expressed support for the petition "by letter or through questionnaire response," and the plaintiffs had expressly indicated that they did not support the relevant antidumping petition in their questionnaire responses. 


Court of International Trade Sustains Civil Penalty for Transacting Customs Business Without a License.  United States v. Freight Forwarder International, Inc. [Kelly, J.].  On January 21, 2015, the Court of International Trade granted the United States' motion for default judgment against a Louisiana company for transacting customs business without a broker's license and sustained a penalty imposed by CBP.  The opinion was the first to examine liability under section 1641(b)(6) of Title 19 of the United States Code, which imposes civil penalties on any person, defined to include corporations, who intentionally transacts customs business without holding a valid customs broker's license.  The court held that the government alleged facts establishing that defendant, who failed to appear in the action, transacted customs business without a broker's license by paying duties and fees to CBP as well as by holding itself out to the public as having an in-house customs broker. 


Court of International Trade Sustains in Part and Remands in Part Commerce's Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order Covering Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China.  Fengchi Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States  [Tsoucalas, S.J.].  On March 25, 2015, the Court of International Trade largely sustained Commerce's final results of its antidumping duty administrative review concerning magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China.  During the review, Commerce had requested the Chinese producer of MCBs to provide information regarding all United States sales during the period of review.  The producer had submitted information for one sale of MCBs, but refused to provide any further information, claiming that its remaining sales were for magnesia alumina carbon bricks (MACBs), which were outside the scope of the order and therefore irrelevant.  After calculating an adverse antidumping duty rate of 236 percent for the producer, Commerce corroborated that rate using price information for MCBs and MACBs obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  While the case was pending, the Federal Circuit issued Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States, setting aside Commerce's finding that MACBs were within the scope of the order covering MCBs.  Following supplemental briefing, the Court of International Trade in this case sustained Commerce's decision to require the producer to provide MACB sales information and to calculate an adverse rate in light of the producer's refusal to provide the information, but remanded for Commerce to further explain its corroboration of its adverse rate in light of Fedmet.


Court of International Trade Sustains Commerce Department's Denial of Separate Duty Rate to Chinese Garlic Exporter.  Jinxiang Yuanxin Import & Export Co., Ltd., v. United States [Eaton, J.].  On March 23, 2015, the Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's determination that plaintiff, a Chinese exporter of single-clove garlic, was ineligible for a separate antidumping duty rate because its transactions were not bona fide and commercially reasonable.  Upon request, Commerce is required by statute to determine whether new exporters or producers of merchandise that is subject to an existing antidumping duty order are entitled to their own separate duty rates rather than the China-wide duty rate, and, if so, to calculate the separate rates.  Commerce found, and the court upheld, that plaintiff was not entitled to a separate rate and must be subject to the higher rate applicable to other exporters because, among other things, the sales prices of its single-clove garlic were aberrational and not indicative of future commercial behavior. 


Court of International Trade Sustains Commerce's Ruling that Russian Ammonium Nitrate Should Be Assessed Antidumping DutiesKirovo-Chepetskey Khimichesky Kombinant, JSC, part of Uralchem, OJSC v. United States [Carman, S.J.].  On March 26, 2015, the Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's decision that a solid fertilizer product, known as NS 30:7, is covered by the scope of an antidumping duty order on solid fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products from the Russian Federation.  The court first determined that the scope language was ambiguous as to whether NS 30:7 constituted an "ammonium nitrate product" and further determined that Commerce made a reasonable choice, based on substantial evidence in the record, to consider both the combined and uncombined ammonium nitrate content of NS 30:7 in order to determine whether NS 30:7 was an ammonium nitrate product.  The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that Commerce applied a new test to determine scope coverage based on how NS 30:7 dissolves in water.  Finally, the court sustained Commerce's ability to reject untimely factual submissions during the administrative proceeding. 


Court of International Trade Partially Sustains Commerce Department's Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Xanthan Gum from ChinaCP Kelco US, Inc. v. United States [Goldberg, J.].  On March 31, 2015, the Court of International Trade sustained several Commerce determinations relating to the antidumping duty rate applied to xanthan gum imported from China, and remanded other determinations to Commerce for further review.  In antidumping investigations involving goods from non-market economies such as China, Commerce calculates duties using surrogate data from market-economy countries such as Thailand.  Here, the court upheld as reasonable Commerce's determination not to assign a separate surrogate value to a bacteria strain used in the production of xanthan gum.  The court also sustained Commerce's decisions regarding the costs of corn and truck freight.  The court granted a request for a voluntary remand for Commerce to reconsider its determinations relating to energy consumption.  The court also remanded Commerce's selection of one financial statement over another. 


Feature Article



The first winner of the Andrew P. Vance Memorial Writing Competition was announced on December 6, 1999.  The Customs and International Trade Bar Association and Brooklyn Law School combined to create this writing competition which fittingly honors a devoted public servant and esteemed colleague of the customs law bar.

Mr. Andrew Vance joined the Civil Division of the Justice Department in 1953 handling civil litigation before the Federal courts.  A skilled and successful Government litigator, the Justice Department elevated Mr. Vance to Chief of the Customs Section in 1962.  He served in that capacity for fourteen years.  Upon his retirement from Government service in 1976, he entered private practice with the firm Barnes, Richardson & Colburn.  Mr. Vance was a Navy veteran and active in the Greek Orthodox Church in America until his passing in 1997.


The Andrew P. Vance Writing Competition has provided scores of law students with an interest in customs and international trade an opportunity to focus on a particular topic and expose their writing to critical review.  This approach reflects the way Andy Vance ran the Customs Section.

Joseph I. Liebman, who in 1978 was appointed to be the Attorney in Charge of the International Trade Field Office, formerly the Customs Section, delivered remarks prepared for the reception held on December 6, 1999.  Included below are some of his comments:


. . . I have chosen to focus upon his role as mentor, extra­ordinaire to those on his staff in the Customs Section where we began our legal careers under his supervision.  I don't believe anyone has taken a count, but it's safe to say we are about a 100 strong.  . . . We all have one thing in common, we all were enriched by our association with Andy.


*  *  *

As a Government attorney, no litigant or case was too inconsequential or unimportant, either in dollar value or precedential importance for Andy to ignore.  He delighted in encouraging his staff to explore all avenues to find a knowledgeable witness or to uncover a forgotten precedential case or piece of legislative history.  He particularly took great pleasure in personally supervising the trials of new attorneys.  There he could offer gentle, although firm advice and vigorous encouragement, and this allowed him to spend a few informal hours with new staff members, sharing an evening meal and conversations about family, current events, or opera.


* * *

. . . He consistently worked to improve the quality of the legal profession, demanding the highest level of professionalism both from those who were privileged, like me, to learn from him and from those who represented our opponents. . . . Andy had a list of "dos" and "do nots" that he espoused to every new attorney as part of their first day's orientation, and in the 1960's, long before the modern rules of ethics that govern the conduct of public officials, Andy had a simple guideline, which is still, invaluable today - "if you don't like how it reads in the headlines of the "New York Post," then it's something you should strongly consider not doing."


* * *

Often, he was extremely, sometimes painfully, demanding, exacting performances attributable to the conductor of the symphony orchestra.  He showed us how to write organized briefs; how to present effective, articulate oral arguments; how to examine and cross­examine witnesses; how to be patient and cognizant of very minor details for they might be the keys to a missing link; how to respect and cause change in the judicial system; how to stand up for the principles we were advocating in difficult situations; how to be compassionate and fair, and how to reach for higher goals.


* * *

In a similar view, another one of Andy's lawyers, Frank Desiderio wrote:


. . .Andy was a class act: A legal scholar, advocate mentor, task master, etc.  We were indeed fortunate to begin our legal careers under his tutelage.  He was a positive influence on all young lawyers whose lives he touched.  His track record may best be evidenced by the professional success of the lawyers he trained.

In addition to his integrity, professional and people skills, passion for advocacy and indefatigable work ethic, he was devoted to his family, church and the arts.  I consider myself fortunate to have served in the Customs Section when he was at the helm.

 * * *

Another former Customs Section trial attorney, Lee Sandler, said that the accomplishments and qualities of Andy are best crystallized in the specific memories we all had of how he influenced our work and our professionalism.  


.... He eased the way for inexperienced attorneys to become confident and accomplished trial attorneys. Prior to the 1970's new and inexperienced Customs Section lawyers had heavy trial schedules, but he made certain that new attorneys tried their first cases outside New York (and away from the pressure of performing before their peers) and with the benefit a supporting senior attorney (Andy or one of his deputies would be present as a support).  In my case, Andy flew with me to San Francisco for the Courts' docket; he tried the first case and then I handled three trials while he served as a silent second chair.  His one intrusion into the trial was to instruct me to ask the Court for a moment to consult with counsel after examining any witness. "Consultation" meant he showed me his legal pad in which he had written down every question he thought I should ask. As I examined a witness he struck each question which I asked during trial. Looking at the pad, I could see the "unasked" questions, but Andy had instructed me to use my own judgment whether to ask the "unasked". The technique was remarkable:  I had to prepare my own line of questioning and conduct the examination but I knew that he would quietly shore-up what I might have missed, creating a better trial record and a better trial attorney.


...He reviewed every brief and took the time to discuss his reactions with the attorney.  Once a brief was submitted for review, the anxiety about the nature of his comments grew. His habit was to list on the cover page of the brief each page number where he had a question...and he discussed each flagged page and each comment with the attorney. I usually tried to relieve the anxiety as soon as I entered his office by trying to see how many page numbers he had recorded on the cover page. His technique improved the brief, but also involved the attorney in understanding the comments and changes.


...He was devoted to building a strong office, building more effective relations with Customs and avoiding unwanted intrusion from Washington.  One story he shared involved his first trip to Philadelphia to try a case. Andy asked for an office in the Customs House and was told that none was available. Andy had seen an office with a full Customs library that he thought was ideal, but the Customs Collector said he couldn't use it because Customs provided it for the Customs lawyer who handled most of the litigation against Customs in Philadelphia.  Vance was successful in convincing the Collector to turn the office over to Justice and to evict the private bar. Years later when I traveled to San Francisco with Andy, he made a point that our first stop would be at the office of the Collector to make it clear that we were there to represent Customs and would need full cooperation.


...The Customs Section was in New York during Andy's years but reported to an Assistant Attorney General in Washington, including such well-known Government officials as William Ruckelshaus, Carla Hills and L. Patrick Gray.  Each newly- appointed AAG would schedule a trip to New York to find out what the Customs Section was doing (i.e., to assert some control over it), and Andy was able to persuade them not to be heavy handed (and not to make a second trip) by having them briefed on the latest classification issue on imported chemicals.


...When the Andrew P. Vance Memorial Writing Award was created, Fred Ikenson wrote that "after Andy's death, I kept hearing from one friend and another, virtually the same words, over and over again - statements like:  "He was a giant in my life"; or "I still do the things I learned from him, as a matter of course"; or, perhaps the ultimate compliment from a seasoned lawyer - "When confronted by a particularly difficult situation, I have often asked myself how would Andy handle this?"".


...Susan Cassell succinctly described his enthusiastic dedication to the law and to the practice of law: saying that when she was hired to be a Customs Section trial lawyer, "I had no clue as to what the work of the office really was, except that I was told it grappled with such weighty legal issues as to whether something was a cup or a mug. Somehow, Andy made those issues seem as important as if we were arguing Marbury v Madison. In no other legal position that I held since, has the expectation for perfection or near perfection been as strong as it was with Andy."


* * *

All those who served during Andy's tenure have similar stories or memories.  After Andy left Government service as a partner at Barnes Richardson & Colburn, he became an active and effective private practitioner.  He brought to that firm and to his advocacy on "the other side" the same zeal, integrity, and enthusiasm which were the hallmarks of his tenure as a Government attorney.


As we gather today, CITBA and Brooklyn Law School ask that you consider what you can do to help perpetuate the memory of an outstanding public servant and gentleman. In the words of Fred Ikenson: "In honoring Andy..., we honor ourselves. By naming this writing competition after him, we have attempted to bestow on him, in our modest way, some degree of immortality {and} the winners of this award...will be receiving an important part of our tradition, of our lore".  


Now is the time to recommit resources to continue underwriting the Andrew P. Vance Memorial Writing Competition.  We hope you will help.




Please look for further announcements and copies of past newsletters at: http://www.citba.org/



CITBA now allows dues payment through PayPal. PayPal allows members to send money without sharing financial information, with the flexibility to pay for membership using their account balances, bank accounts or credit cards. PayPal is an eBay company and is made up of three leading online payment services. More information about Pay Pal can be found at: https://www.paypal.com/home.


Not a CITBA member? Apply for membership now! CITBA offers different membership levels - active, associate and retired/student. For additional information, check out the CITBA website: Join CITBA or Renew.


Are you already a member, but late in paying your dues? Need to update your contact information? Get current today and enjoy the benefits of membership. Contact William J. Maloney at wmaloney@rode-qualey.com for details.

DISCLAIMER: The CITBA Quarterly Electronic Newsletter is published as a free service for members of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association. The Newsletter is for general information only and is not legal advice for any purpose. Opinions reflected in the Featured Articles are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the position of CITBA, its members, the Board of Directors, or Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. Neither CITBA and its officers and members nor Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., assume liability for the accuracy of the information provided.