Homeland Security Stole Michael Arrington's Boat

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, lives near Seattle and bought a boat there. He ordered it from a company based near him, but across the border in Canada. Yesterday, the company tried to deliver it to him, and it had to clear customs. An agent for the Department of Homeland Security asked him to sign a form. The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars. Since the form contained legal warnings about making sure everything on it is true and accurate, Arrington suggested to the agent that they correct the error. She responded by seizing the boat. 'As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it. What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her. ... A person with a gun and a government badge asked me to swear in writing that a lie was true today. And when I didn't do what she wanted she simply took my boat and asked me to leave.'"

Comments

Re:Would you like some cheese with that?

[Hatta]

Ask to have the paperwork re-done

Isn't that what got his boat confiscated?

Re:Would you like some cheese with that?

[gstoddart]

Otherwise you wouldn't have been an asshole about the whole thing. Make the correction, initial it, and sign the bottom. Ask to have the paperwork re-done and make an appointment to come back when it's ready.

Did you read the whole article?

The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.

The DHS agent didnâ(TM)t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter," she said. I declined.

He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.

Re:Was the exchange rate wrong?

[gstoddart]

If the document stated the price in US dollars and was clearly marked as being US dollars why would one care that they paid Canadian Dollars if the paper had the correct exchange rate and listed it in US dollars

Dude, seriously, it's in the article ... they took the Canadian dollar value, turned it into American dollars (incorrectly), and asked him to sign a form under oath that what the form said was true.

The government form was wrong, he tried to fix it, they became assholes and confiscated his boat.

I'm entirely willing to believe some DHS agent went off and acted like an idiot when he was trying to reasonably fix a clerical error.

Re:They told me

[nickscalise]

Whoosh!

His point was it really did not matter who he voted for. The crap continues.

Or, it could be that the folks who told him that were just saying ANYTHING to keep Romney from being elected. Because their guy was already giving them stuff, and they did not want to stop receiving stuff.

Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The guy refused to sign the import documents which would release the boat and then is surprised when they didn't release the boat?

He refused to commit perjury, and was then surprised--as most people would be--when he was punished for his refusal to commit perjury. How hard is this to understand?

Clerical errors are already clearly explained

[argStyopa]

Since the CAD is currently weaker than the dollar, having declared it in USD instead of CAD would be adverse to the government, which actually makes it easier. (It depends on the exchange rate at the date of export, but based on today.)
(Rulings adverse to the importer entered after Dec 2004 actually HAVE to come from a formal protest.)

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e7f7df984a01d3c9478867fa0f872497&rgn=div5&view=text&node=19:2.0.1.1.19&idno=19

19CFR 173:
 173.1 Authority to review for error.
Port directors have broad responsibility and authority to review transactions to ensure that the rate and amount of duty assessed on imported merchandise is correct and that the transaction is otherwise in accordance with the law. This authority extends to errors in the construction of a law and to errors adverse to the Government as well as the importer.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46830, Aug. 9, 1979]

 173.2 Transactions which may be reviewed and corrected.
The port director may review transactions for correctness, and take appropriate action under his general authority to correct errors, including those in appraisement where appropriate, at the time of:
(a) Liquidation of an entry;
(b) Voluntary reliquidation completed within 90 days after liquidation;
(c) Voluntary correction of an exaction within 90 days after the exaction was made;
(d) Reliquidation made pursuant to a valid protest covering the particular merchandise as to which a change is in order; or
(e) Modification, pursuant to a valid protest, of a transaction or decision which is neither a liquidation or reliquidation.

 173.4a Correction of clerical error prior to liquidation.
Pursuant to section 520(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(a)(4)), the port director may, prior to liquidation of an entry, take appropriate action to correct a clerical error that resulted in the deposit or payment of excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions.
[T.D. 85-123, 50 FR 29957, July 23, 1985]

 162.23 Seizure under section 596(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)).
(...)
(d) Seizure under 19 U.S.C. 1592. If merchandise is imported, introduced or attempted to be introduced contrary to a provision of law governing its classification or value, and there is no issue of admissibility, such merchandise shall not be seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c). Any seizure of such merchandise shall be in accordance with section 1592 (see  162.75 of this chapter).

As I understand the circumstances, on importation he performed what's called 'prior disclosure' - (Â 162.74 Prior disclosure.) identifying orally or in writing to the customs officer of the violation, before an actual investigation was begun. In this case the importer is supposed to tender any potential penalties/duties (in this case, none, since the import value was actually LOWER than declared) .

And finally:
 162.75 Seizures limited under section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
(a) When authorized. Merchandise may be seized for violation of section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592) only if the port director has reasonable cause to believe that a person has violated the statute and that
(1) The person is insolvent,
(2) The person is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States,
(3) Seizure otherwise is essential to protect the revenue, or
(4) Seizure is essential to prevent the introduction of prohibited or restricted merchandise into the Customs territory of the United States.
(b) No seizure if prior disclosure. Under no circumstances shall merchandise be seized under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1592 if there has been a prior disclosure of the violatio

Re:so what?

[rhsanborn]

This was addressed in the comments on the article. He offered to make the change, the agent informed him he wasn't allowed to change the form.