The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will on Oct. 1 begin notifying importers and customs brokers when they submit Lacey Act declarations that contain errors, APHIS said in an emailed update. Importers who receive these letters of non-compliance “do not need to take action to correct the declaration in question, but they should take steps to correct future declarations,” APHIS said. “Repeated failures to correct errors may result in APHIS referring future violations for investigation or potential enforcement action.” Most notifications will be sent by email, it said. “Common errors include: misidentifying the species of imported wood or wood products, listing unlikely country and plant species pairs, submitting incomplete declarations, and/or failing to file a declaration in a timely manner,” APHIS said.
Importers lauded the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s proposal to create a de minimis exemption from Lacey Act declaration requirements, but called for the agency to allow flexibility in how products may qualify, in recently submitted comments on the APHIS proposed rule. But commenters criticized a proposed requirement for declarations to be submitted within three days after importation, instead urging APHIS to harmonize the timeline with other agencies’ import requirements.
The Section 232 quotas on steel and aluminum from certain countries and exclusions from the Section 232 tariffs are among the toughest procedural challenges CBP is facing in dealing with those trade remedies, CBP officials from the Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise recently told the American Institute for International Steel. AIIS said in its newsletter that the group's customs committee held a conference call on Sept. 6 with Center Director Africa Bell and other officials. CBP is in the process of making fixes to aid in the remedying of those problems, it said.
The government is opposing a bid by a group of importers to have CBP issue interim drawback regulations that would allow the agency to begin processing claims under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, according to recent court filings. Though those importers hope interim calculation procedures can be issued as soon as October (see 1808280037), the government said the drawback calculation provisions are “not easily divorced” from the rest of a recent proposed rule, and urged the Court of International Trade to let the rulemaking process proceed normally.
Continuing the “tit-for-tat tariff escalation” with China by enacting a third tranche of proposed Section 301 duties on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports “only serves to expand the harm to more U.S. economic interests, including farmers, families, businesses, and workers,” wrote the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, the National Retail Federation and 148 other trade groups in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer at the Sept. 6 deadline for comments in docket USTR-2018-0026. “Unilaterally imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in goods invites retaliation,” said the groups, which also included the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones, the American Association of Exporters and Importers, the Information Technology Industry Council and the Telecommunications Industry Association. Implementing the first two rounds of tariffs July 6 and Aug. 23 “has not resulted in meaningful negotiations or concessions” from the Chinese, they said.
The Food and Drug Administration posted its updated list of filer evaluation outcomes dated Sept. 4, 2018. The frequency of filer evaluations depends on the number of lines filed by the company. An outcome of "paperless" means FDA has determined that electronic filing is appropriate, while "corrective action plan" means FDA has found an elevated error rate and has directed the filer to fix the issue, and "dual-mode filer" means the company has failed to implement corrective action plans and has been returned to dual-mode (paper and electronic) filing. The following filer evaluation outcomes were updated in FDA's latest list:
CBP could begin processing drawback claims as soon as October if all goes according to the plans of a group of customs brokers and importers challenging CBP’s failure to meet a February deadline, said John Peterson of Neville Peterson, who represents those brokers and importers in the case at the Court of International Trade.
The House could pass the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill in the first week or so following a return from recess after Labor Day "if they think that they can get it passed and get it through the president to sign," said Jon Kent, a lobbyist for the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America with Kent & O'Connor. One potential issue could be inconsistency concerns within the administration over tariff cuts on many goods that come from China as other tariffs are being added under Section 301 and other trade remedies, Kent said.
A “proof of concept” test set to begin in September will allow brainstorming and early stage testing on the use of blockchain technology in processes for the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central America Free Trade Agreement, Vincent Annunziato, director of Customs and Border Protection’s Business Transformation and Innovation Division, told reporters last week at the CBP 2018 Trade Symposium in Atlanta. CBP will consider not only the technical capabilities of blockchain and any business benefits but also whether use of the technology fits with the agency’s regulatory and policy scheme. CBP will look at whether blockchain can be used in country of origin verification procedures, so the supplier can send origin information directly to CBP and the importer doesn’t have to worry about “tracking a piece of paper” from the carrier to the broker and into its own files. By the end of 2018, once the proof of concept is completed, CBP and trade community participants will put together an assessment and make recommendations based on the results of testing. CBP was planning to launch the test this fall after the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee identified NAFTA and CAFTA origin procedures as a viable starting point. Annunziato distinguished the proof of concept from a pilot: proof of concept is intended to see if new technology works for specified uses, and once it’s complete the proof of concept will be taken down. Should CBP find a given use of blockchain promising, he said, it may then create a “more robust” pilot that works “within the confines” of any regulations and policies that needed to be changed and could lead to operational changes.
A “proof of concept” test set to begin in September will allow brainstorming and early stage testing on the use of blockchain technology in processes for the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central America Free Trade Agreement, Vincent Annunziato, director of Customs and Border Protection’s Business Transformation and Innovation Division, told reporters last week at the CBP 2018 Trade Symposium in Atlanta. CBP will consider not only the technical capabilities of blockchain and any business benefits but also whether use of the technology fits with the agency’s regulatory and policy scheme. CBP will look at whether blockchain can be used in country of origin verification procedures, so the supplier can send origin information directly to CBP and the importer doesn’t have to worry about “tracking a piece of paper” from the carrier to the broker and into its own files. By the end of 2018, once the proof of concept is completed, CBP and trade community participants will put together an assessment and make recommendations based on the results of testing. CBP was planning to launch the test this fall after the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee identified NAFTA and CAFTA origin procedures as a viable starting point. Annunziato distinguished the proof of concept from a pilot: proof of concept is intended to see if new technology works for specified uses, and once it’s complete the proof of concept will be taken down. Should CBP find a given use of blockchain promising, he said, it may then create a “more robust” pilot that works “within the confines” of any regulations and policies that needed to be changed and could lead to operational changes.