TSN Writes CBP on "Edit Modification" (Edit-Lite)

(In 2007, CBP proposed that a number of current Automated Commercial System edits specific to the commercial preparation of the Entry Summary not be carried over into the Automated Commercial Environment. This proposal was originally called "Edit Lite," but is now referred to as "Edit Modification.")

Lack of Edits Would Pose Burden on Trade

According to TSN, the current concern is that insufficient edits may significantly increase the trade's costs and liability risks, as the discovery of errors will occur more frequently "after the fact," during compliance auditing. The vast majority of filers are small to medium size companies, and this would prove to be a major burden to them.

TSN Considered Each of the Validations CBP Proposed to Eliminate

According to the TSN, the trade has seriously considered CBP's desire to reduce the number of unnecessary edits, took a large step back from its initial rejection of the entire Edit Modification proposal, and looked closely at each of the proposed validations that CBP had listed for ACE exclusion.

The TSN then asked that certain items be retained. (This list, as annotated by the TSN, is not a public document according to CBP sources.)

Example of Impact to Trade of Removing Edits in ESAR A2.2

The TSN also provided an example ("case study") of the potential consequences and/or impacts on the trade of CBP's proposed removal of edits in ESAR A2.2.

It examined the cost to software vendors and filers that could arise as a result of a misunderstanding related to the Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF). See TSN's case study for details.

TSN Concerns With Edit Modification

TSN's concerns with Edit Modification include (partial list):

Costs of corrections, penalties. The TSN letter states that the costs associated with making, filing and processing simple and possibly voluminous corrections along with the costs associated with penalty processing will far outweigh the costs of retaining the edits TSN is suggesting.

Less testing of software providers/users. The TSN letter also expresses a concern that while software providers and their users must now pass a full range of tests prior to approval, CBP's Edit Modification proposal, without the changes suggested by the TSN, would place software providers at risk as there will be little to test beyond mere transmission.

"Compensating controls" needed for removal of edits. The TSN letter suggests that CBP should provide compensating controls if edits are removed, because:

The CATAIR (Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements) is not sufficiently annotated with details about many items to truly aid those in the trade responsible for preparing entry programs.

CBP's internal HTS contains details that will be necessary to provide to the trade so that it can function properly in the proposed environment.

Many of the rules surrounding the entry and entry summary process are not easily located.

The TSN adds that it has already formed subcommittees to work with CBP on these "compensating control" issues and has a proposed Business Rules and Process document which will be cross referenced to and supplement an enhanced CATAIR.

(See today's ITT, 08050210, for BP summary of a CBP Edit Modification Update at a Baltimore, MD ACE Seminar.

See ITT's Online Archives or 02/26/08 news, 08022605, for BP summary of TSN trade members saying that CBP had scaled-back its Edit-Lite proposal.

See ITT's Online Archives or 10/05/07 news, 07100505, for BP summary of the TSN Transition Committee responding to CBP's proposal to have minimal edits in ACE.

See ITT's Online Archives or 05/01/08 news, 08050105, for BP summary of CBP's quarterly report to Congress on ACE, which briefly discusses Edit Modification.)

TSN letter and example ("case study") document available via email by sending a request to documents@brokerpower.com