The Court of International Trade on Sept. 24 dismissed a lawsuit from an importer whose Generalized System of Preferences refund request was denied as late, even though the cause was a misunderstanding with the importer’s customs broker. Industrial Chemicals had missed the 180-day deadline to file requests for refunds of duties paid during the GSP lapse of 2013-15. The importer had through a series of emails understood that its broker would request the refunds, and vice versa. After its eventual refund request was denied because it was filed after the deadline, Industrial Chemicals had protested, arguing the issue amounted to a “clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence.” CBP denied the protest in a ruling issued in November 2017 (see 1711170036). The trade court agreed, finding CBP’s decision was not protestable. The law renewing GSP “clearly states that importers must submit requests for retroactive application of GSP over certain entries by December 28, 2015,” CIT said. “Although Customs makes certain decisions related to the liquidation or reliquidation of merchandise, the plain language of the statute does not appear to give Customs discretion in administering refunds for this particular lapse in GSP,” it said.
Advance manifest submissions will be required in the truck environment for low-value Section 321 goods starting Jan. 1, CBP's Todd Owen said at the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America Government Affairs Conference on Sept. 24. "We are starting to make notice to the trade community that we are changing our policy on that and 321 shipments on truck coming from the border will require electronic submission ahead of time," he said. The truck environment was previously exempt from the advance manifest filing requirements, he said. The policy change is due in part to the added risks created with the rapid growth in low-value shipments and will allow for CBP to apply its advanced targeting to the truck environment, he said. While advance filing for trucks coming from Mexico was required in many places due to individual port directors, it's less common on the northern border, Owen said.
CBP recently posted its “estimated schedule” for upcoming deployments in ACE. Made possible by an additional $34 million in appropriations set aside for CBP ACE development this year (see 1805010035), agency development priorities include Section 321 filing capabilities in the Automated Broker Interface and automation of collection of CBP Form 5106 importer identity information (see 1805230061).
CBP will end its pilot allowing brokers to pre-certify importers for the Importer Self-Assessment (ISA) program, the agency said in a notice. "Unfortunately, there was minimal importer participation in the test; thus, CBP has determined that it is not effective to continue," CBP said. The pilot started in 2013 (see 13041623). "While a total of 23 brokers volunteered to participate in the test and 9 brokers were selected to participate in the test per the guidelines of the notice, the test proved unsuccessful as there was little participation from importers," the agency said. "Several importers expressed reservations about securing the services of a broker to conduct the ISA evaluations and indicated that the broker fees were cost prohibitive. Only three (3) importers signed up to be reviewed by the brokers. Because of the low participation rate, CBP has determined that the test and test program are not effective and has decided to terminate the test," effective Sept. 21. CBP added that the "discontinuation of the test and the publication of this notice will have no effect on the ISA program."
Multiple conservative-aligned groups called for CBP to change course on the agency's proposed plans to eliminate duty drawback for excise taxes. Those groups, including Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, filed comments on the proposed changes for drawback under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (see 1808020049). The question of ending drawback for excise taxes on domestically produced goods that are exported free of excise taxes, a practice used by the wine industry for years to the envy of other industries paying excise taxes (see 1708090043), was the biggest area of contention among comments filed in the docket.
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.