CBP's Proposed Rule on 10+2 for Maritime Cargo (Part IV - Additional Comments on Importer SF)

CBP states that this additional information, which would be submitted by way of a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system¹, will further improve the ability of CBP to identify high-risk shipments in order to prevent the smuggling of terrorist weapons into the U.S. and ensure cargo safety and security.

Written comments on this proposed rule are due by March 3, 2008.

This is Part IV of a multipart series of summaries of this proposed rule, and highlights CBP's responses to additional comments that were received on the 10+2 Strawman, as well as additional recommendations of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Function's (COAC) Advance Data Subcommittee, regarding the importer SF requirements (e.g. master bills/house bills, authorized agents, etc.). See future issues of ITT for summary of additional CBP responses to comments and recommendations received.

Importer SF Alone Would Not Constitute "Customs Business"

A commenter stated that foreign freight forwarders need to be allowed to file the importer SF and the final rule needs to state that filing the importer SF does not constitute "customs business."

CBP responded that the importer SF would be a filing for security purposes, not for any of the purposes identified under 19 USC 1641 or 19 CFR Part 111. As such, the transmission of the importer SF alone would not constitute "customs business."

As discussed in the proposed rule, if an importer chooses to have applicable elements of the importer SF used for entry purposes, the importer SF must be self-filed by the importer or filed by a licensed customs broker.

Importer Could Use Agent to Submit Importer SF

A commenter stated that it is unfair to hold the importer liable for data filed by a foreign party, such as a foreign freight forwarder. The commenter added that the importer may not have any method of even checking the advance trade data that has been filed.

In response to requests from the trade, CBP stated that it is proposing to allow an importer, as defined in the proposed regulations, to use an agent of the importer's choosing to submit the importer SF; however, CBP is not requiring the use of an agent. CBP notes that the importer is ultimately responsible for the timely, accurate, and complete submission of the importer SF.

Any Party Could Participate in ABI for Sole Purpose of Importer SF

A commenter stated that current access requirements to CBP systems need to be changed. The commenter added that CBP must eliminate the requirement that ABI filers have custom house broker licenses or be self-filers.

CBP responded that pursuant to 19 CFR 143.1, importers, brokers, and ABI service bureaus are permitted to participate in ABI. In addition, CBP stated that other parties currently access ABI to transmit protests, forms relating to in-bond movements, and applications for foreign trade zone (FTZ) admission.

CBP states that it is proposing to amend 19 CFR 143.1 to clarify that importers, brokers, and, if they do not participate in "customs business," ABI service bureaus, are permitted to participate in ABI for entry and entry summary purposes.

In addition, CBP is proposing to create a new 19 CFR 143.1(b) to state that for importer SF purposes, any party may participate in ABI solely for the purposes of filing the importer SF if that party fulfills the eligibility requirements contained in proposed new 19 CFR 149.5.

Proposed 19 CFR 141.3(b) explains that if a party other than a customs broker or an importer submits the importer SF, no portion of the importer SF can be used for entry or entry summary purposes.

CBP is also creating a new 19 CFR 143.1(c) which states that for other purposes, upon approval by CBP, any party may gain access to ABI for other purposes, including transmission of protests, forms relating to in-bond movements, and applications for FTZ admission.

CBP Would Require Import SF to be Submitted at Lowest Bill Level

A commenter stated that in the case of transshipped goods, the system programming should allow reporting at the house bill of lading level based upon the feeder vessel at time of loading, which can then be married to the arriving/mother vessel through AMS filing by that arriving/mother vessel.

CBP disagreed and stated that under the proposed rule, CBP is requiring that the importer SF be submitted at the lowest bill level, down to the house bill, and is requiring that the bill be the one under which the cargo is brought to the U.S.

Importer SF Could Satisfy Multiple Bills of Lading

A commenter suggested that when one shipment to one importer of record includes multiple bills of lading, only one SF should be required. The commenter added that the multiple bills of lading should not be required to be identified at the line item level.

CBP agreed and stated that under the proposed rule, one importer SF can satisfy multiple bills of lading. However, the manufacturer (or supplier) name and address, country of origin, and commodity Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number elements must be linked to one another at the line item level.

Filer Would Reference the Master Bill of Lading Number in Importer SF

A commenter recommended that there should be capability for the importer SF to be done at the house bill of lading level with no reference to the master bill of lading.

CBP disagreed with the commenter, stating that it is necessary for the filer to reference the master bill of lading number in the importer SF in order for the house bill and master bill to be linked at a later date.

CBP Would Not Establish Profiles for Importers of Repetitive Shipments

A commenter suggested that CBP should establish account profiles for importers of repetitive shipments. The commenter adds that these accounts could be based on the ACE account example or the Border Release Advanced Screening and Selectivity (BRASS) (line release) example at the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders.

CBP stated that it disagrees and it will use the importer SF to assess the risk of individual shipments. For purposes of this rulemaking, each and every shipment arriving to the U.S. by vessel would be subject to the importer SF requirements.

CBP adds that as it continues to develop ACE, it will continue to make enhanced flexibility for the trade a top priority.

CBP Would Provide Electronic Acknowledgement of Filer's Submission

A commenter suggested that CBP transmit a confirmation or acceptance message confirming that the importer SF has been successfully filed. The acceptance message would not be expected to validate the data transmitted, simply to confirm that it has been received in the required format.

In addition, the commenter suggested that query functionality be designed into the system to provide the importer of record or its authorized agent visibility as to whether an importer SF has been made for a specific shipment. At the same time, the system should be designed so that importers have full visibility, meaning they are able to read the actual data elements as filed and also who made the filing.

CBP agreed in part. CBP stated that it will provide, to the filer, electronic acknowledgement that the filer's submission has been received according to ABI and AMS standards. However, ABI and AMS filers will not have the ability to query whether an importer SF is complete, the actual data elements, or the identity of the party who filed the elements.

CBP stated that it believes that communication between importers, as defined in the proposed regulations, and their designated agents will be sufficient to inform the importer regarding the completeness and contents of a filing.

¹The current approved electronic data interchange systems for the importer SF are the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) and the Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS). CBP states that if it approves a different or additional electronic data interchange system, CBP will publish notice in the Federal Register.

• Written comments on the proposed rule are due by March 3, 2008 and may be submitted on all aspects of the proposal

(See ITT's Online Archives or 01/04/08 news, 08010405, for Part III of BP's summary on this proposed rule, with a link to Parts I & II.)

CBP contact - Richard Di Nucci (202) 344-2513

CBP proposed rule (FR Pub 01/02/08) available at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E7-25306.pdf