CPSC Certificate eFiling Will Require New Importer-Broker Processes, Says COAC Work Group
Even with the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s mooted certificate registry approach, the electronic filing of certificates of compliance at entry will create some hurdles that will have to be overcome, according to a document recently released by an Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations (COAC) work group focused on the issue (here). The current process is “all paper,” and translating that paper to data is going to be a “heavy lift,” said the summary of the work group’s discussions. Electronic filing at entry will also require the creation of new processes for the broker and importer to exchange data so the broker can file with CBP, it said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Currently, the testing process and the creation of certificates of compliance is carried out entirely on the importer side, and the broker is not involved. Conversely, the importer is generally not involved in transmitting data directly to government agencies, instead relying on the broker. If CPSC moves forward with its proposal on electronic filing, the importer may have to build the IT systems and process infrastructure to send information to the registry, then get a message back from CPSC with a unique certificate identifier and communicate that to the broker for filing with CBP, said the work group summary. “This is a challenge from the process standpoint along with the data elements themselves,” it said.
Another issue arises from HTS numbers that cover products that require certificates and products that don’t. For products under those HTS numbers that aren’t subject to certificate requirements, filers may have to submit a declaration disclaiming that the entry line requires a certificate. But customs brokers don’t know the product, and “would not be in a position to submit a disclaimer on behalf of our customer without some very clear guidance,” said the summary. Getting that guidance may be difficult, because importer employees that handle classification and entry work “are not always ‘in the know’ as to what is subject to CPSC,” it said. “There are often two different departments involved – a Quality Assurance department that handles product safety, and a Trade Compliance department that determines import requirements and communicates with the customs broker,” said the summary.
The work group was formed in anticipation of a CPSC pilot to test a streamlined “certificate registry” approach to electronic filing of certificates of compliance, where the importer would file the 10 required certificate data elements in the registry one time for any given product, and would receive a single identifier data element for that certificate that could be used on entry documentation in lieu of the full certificate data set (see 1503120069). CBP and CPSC held webinars on March 12 and 26 to discuss the pilot with importers and customs brokers. In the meantime, the COAC work group met on March 19 and 24, with an eye toward presenting recommendations at the next full COAC meeting in late April.
According to the work group, a lot more education and training is needed for customs brokers and the importing community for electronic filing to work. It’s also important that the registry contain “only IMPORTANT data, that is preferably not available somewhere else,” said the summary. “There is collective frustration on the pilot process,” it said. “If the end goal is import surveillance, it should be done in the least burdensome way and facilitate legitimate trade.”