Customs Announces ACE Simplified Entry Pilot Program

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently announced its plan to conduct a National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) entry capability. According to CBP’s General Notice, the new trial will test entry filing via a process known as Simplified Entry, which will be filed in lieu of filing a Form 3461 or its electronic equivalent.

Simplified Entry is intended to simplify the entry process by allowing participants to submit twelve (12) required and three (3) optional data elements to CBP at any time before the imported goods arrive, as follows:

Required Data Elements

1. Importer of Record
2. Buyer name and address
3. Buyer Employer Identification Number (consignee number)
4. Seller name and address
5. Manufacturer/supplier name and address
6. HTS 10-digit number
7. Country of origin
8. Bill of lading/house air waybill number
9. Bill of lading issuer code
10. Entry number
11. Entry type
12. Estimated shipment value

Optional Data Elements

1. Ship to party name and address
2. Consolidator name and address
3. Container stuffing location

The Simplified Entry may not be filed in lieu of an entry summary, which still must be made in ACE. CBP has limited this initial phase to entries that are not under the admissibility jurisdiction of Other Government Agencies (OGAs). It also will limit to air shipments.

CBP has chosen the following nine brokers to participate in the pilot program, which is expected to begin at the end of 2011/beginning of 2012:

1. A.N. Deringer Inc.
2. Expeditors
3. FedEx Trade Networks
4. FH Kaysing
5. Janel Group of New York
6. Kuehne + Nagel Inc.
7. Livingston International
8. Page & Jones Inc.
9. UPS.

Proposed Bill Provides Customs Brokers with New Obligation

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri introduced a bill entitled the “Fighting for American Industry’s Right to Enforcement Against Duty Evasion Act,” otherwise known as the “FAIR Enforcement Against Duty Evasion Act of 2011,” with the intention of ending duty evasion by foreign companies. The bill addresses two issues: (1) the lack of information collected on importers making it difficult for officials to identify those companies evading antidumping duty and (2) the ability of foreign companies who have not previously shipped to the U.S. to post a bond to cover estimated duties rather than pay cash.

Broker Obligation

The bill obligates customs brokers to use a good faith effort to obtain the identity of the customer importing into the U.S. and “maintain[ ] records of the information used to substantiate a person’s identify, including name, address, and other identifying information.” SAFE Enforcement Against Duty Evasion Act of 2011, sec. 3(a)(i)(2)(C), amending section 641(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930. With this additional burden on brokers comes new significant penalty exposure. A broker who fails to obtain the required identifying information is potentially liable for a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation and a possible revocation or suspension of the broker’s license. http://mccaskill.senate.gov/files/documents/pdf/McCaskill_FAIR_Enforcement_Against%20Duty_Evasion_Act.pdf

Senator McCaskill indicated in her press release that collection of the identifying data would assist law enforcement during an investigation by “increasing the likelihood the lawbreakers can be identified and brought to justice.” http://mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1337. The bill also creates what she referred to as a “safe harbor” to prevent brokers from penalties when they made reasonable efforts to comply with the new law. To this end, within 60 days from the date the bill is enacted, CBP must publish a Federal Register notice, in which it solicits proposals for examples of conduct that should not trigger the penalty provision. After the public comment period closes, CBP will issue its final regulation specifying such practices.

In addition, the bill requires CBP and other regulators to submit a report to Congress, (1) recommending the best way to require foreign nations to provide brokers with the required identifying information and (2) establishing a system for brokers to review identifying information maintained by the government.

New Shippers

In addition to the added broker obligations, the bill also removes the “bonding-in-lieu” provision for new shippers to the U.S. Instead, the bill requires shippers to pay in cash up front, thereby eliminating the possibility of posting a bond for estimated duties. This requirement is intended to prevent foreign companies from vanishing before making a duty payment in full. Under the bill, estimated duties are paid on imported goods at the beginning of the import process, rather than after the goods are in the U.S.

CBP Ends Paper Courtesy Liquidation Notices

In an attempt to streamline the notification process and reduce mailing costs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has decided to eliminate mailing paper copies of courtesy notices of liquidation. Although not statutorily necessary, CBP had established the practice of issuing courtesy copies of liquidation notices to importers of record whose entry summaries are filed in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI). Such courtesy liquidation notices provide informal and advance notice of an entry’s liquidation date.

CBP will cease mailing paper copies, but will continue to issue electronic courtesy notices to all ABI filers, which include importers of record who file their own entries and customs brokers who file as the agent of the importer of record. Importers of record who do not file entries through ABI will continue to receive the paper liquidation notices. CBP has also indicated that importers of record with an Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Secure Data Portal Account can monitor the liquidation of their entries by using the reporting tool in the ACE Portal.

CBP estimated that upon implementation of the new policy, the agency will avoid duplication of the courtesy notices and save approximately $3,000,000 in postage annually. Although CBP received several comments praising CBP’s effort to save money, other commentators were concerned that importers of record would become completely reliant on their brokers to provide the liquidation date information that affect myriad of deadlines and customs compliance issues.

In response, CBP indicated that brokers are obligated to provide the liquidation dates. In addition, CBP responded that the agency is currently reprogramming ACE to permit all importers of record to monitor liquidation of entries filed under their importer of record numbers through the ACE Portal. CBP explained that even for those importers who do not have ACE Portal Account, an importer may gain limited access to a broker’s ACE Portal Account to obtain reports for entries filed by the broker using the importer of record number belonging to that importer. CBP is also considering posting an electronic courtesy bulletin notice of liquidation.

In light of this change, importers should consider revising their import policies to ensure that their customs brokers(1) provide the liquidation notices to importers upon receiving the electronic courtesy copy and (2) permit the importer limited access to their ACE Portal Account so that the importer can obtain reports for its entries.

The final rule is effective September 30, 2011. See 76 Fed. Reg. 50883 (Aug. 17, 2011), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-17/pdf/2011-20957.pdf, CBP will implement the rule the first day on or after September 30, 2011 that CBP can provide importers with complete liquidation reports, including liquidation dates, through the ACE Portal. CBP will announce the exact date of implementation after it determines when the ACE reports will be ready.

CBP Changes PEA to PSC When Using ACE

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently announced a new National Customs Automation Program Test regarding ACE Entry Summary, Accounts & Revenue (ESTR IV) capabilities. Importantly, under the ESAR IV test, CBP will permit importers to file post-entry corrections of specific type of ACE entry summaries prior to liquidation. Those participating in the test will be able to submit a PSC for existing ACE formal (type 01) entries and Antidumping/Countervailing (type 03) entries.

CBP has explained that such post-summary corrections (PSCs) replaces the Post-Entry Amendment (PEA) procedures currently used by importers to amend entry summaries prior to liquidation, which had permitted an importer to file an individual amendment letter or a quarterly tracking report covering certain errors. As of Sept. 22, 2011, CBP will stop accepting PEAs to correct entry summaries filed under ACE.

CBP has explained that if an importer must make a post-summary correction, the PSC filed through ABI should contain all of the data elements in the original entry summary. It will constitute a complete replacement of that entry summary, or any prior PSCs to that original entry summary. The PSC will be processed through all existing validations including Census warnings. Thus, one who files a PSC is conducting “customs business” as defined in 19 C.F.R. § 111.1.

Those ACE Portal Account owners who have the ability to select “portal” as their mode of communication will also have the ability to customize PSC data elements on the ACE entry summary, permitting further customization of existing entry summary reports. Such additional PSC data elements include PSC indicator, PSC filer, PSC reason codes at both the header and line level and an accelerated liquidation request indicator.

CBP has provided the following list of criteria that an importer needs to meet to file a PSC on an existing ACE entry type 01 or 03:

• The entry summary to be amended must not be liquidated.
• Duty must have been fully paid on the entry or be revenue free.
• If duty is owed because of the PSC, it must be deposited at time of filing PSC.
• The entry summary must be in “accepted status,” meaning it passed all technical edits and validations by CBP and Census.
• The entry summary must be in CBP control.
• The PSC must be transmitted within 270 days of date of entry.
• The PSC cannot be filed within 20 calendar days of the scheduled liquidation date of the entry summary.
• The entry summary cannot be under CBP review.
• The entry summary that has been flagged for reconciliation may only be corrected by a PSC that does not affect the flagged issue.
• A text explanation and at least one reason code are required for each PSC.
• An unlimited number of PSCs may be filed for any one entry, provided all the above criteria are met.

There are a number of data elements that may not be changed via the filing of a PSC, including:

• A type 03 entry (AD/CVD) may not be changed into a type 01 entry
• Importer of record
• Consolidated summary indicator
• District/port of entry
• Cargo release certification request indicator
• Live entry indicator
• NAFTA indicator
• Reconciliation issue code
• Preliminary statement print date
• Periodic statement month
• Statement client branch identifier
• Location of goods code
• Any release detail, e.g., release entry filer code, release entry number)

PSC cannot be filed in place of a prior disclosure, which are still to be filed according to 19 C.F.R.§ 162.74. More information can be found at 76 Fed. Reg. 37136 (June 24, 2011).

Are You Getting a CBP Form 28 or 29 for the Right Reason?

Earlier this month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a memorandum to the ports to remind import specialists about the proper use of CBP Form 28 Request for Information and CBP Form 29 Notice of Action. The memorandum stemmed from the inconsistent use among the ports and misuse by import specialists who were issuing these notices for purposes for which the notices were not intended.

In the memorandum, the ports were advised that it was appropriate to issue a CBP Form 28 to an importer when there were questions about admissibility, classification or valuation of the imported goods. CBP can also request information about the imported merchandise, such as brochures, descriptive language, blueprints and samples. In addition, CBP can seek proof of payment information or affidavits about manufacturing to determine eligibility of special tariff program, for example. In other words, if the entry summary package contained insufficient information about the imported merchandise, CBP can request information by issuing a CBP Form 28 to the importer.

On the other hand, the ports were instructed not to continue to use CBP Form 28 for a variety of purposes. First, for example, the ports are not to issue a Form 28 to notify the importer that CBP commenced a formal investigation “as a matter of enforcement policy, not a matter of law.” Instead, CBP instructed the import specialists to notify an importer of such an investigation either by letter on CBP letterhead, or issuing a CBP Form 29.

Additionally, import specialists are not permitted to use Form 28 to request proof of a properly executed power of attorney. When requesting such proof of a valid power of attorney, the ports were advised to seek such proof in writing by submitting an individualized letter on CBP letterhead, or in person during a broker compliance visit.

Finally, the memorandum reminded the ports to avoid warning importers about penalties or investigations For example, CBP does not want import specialists to state that failing to provide the information requested could lead to penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. Similarly, import specialists should not state that “this office is investigating the classification of…” when CBP has not really started an investigation. CBP is concerned that using this type of language will lead to fewer prior disclosures and defeat the goal of informed compliance.

CBP Finalizes Harmonized Data Set for Automated Commercial Environment

On June 9, 2011, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the final Participating Government Agencies (PGA) Message Set for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is the U.S. commercial trade processing system designed to (i) automate border processing, (ii) enhance border security, (iii) expedite international trade and (iv) provide a platform for information sharing between industry and government. The PGA Message Set is a harmonized set of information needed by federal agencies to allow imported cargo to enter the country.

According to the ACE 101 Publication dated June 2011, 26 PGAs currently use ACE. The June 9th press release did not specifically name the final PGAs. We submitted an inquiry to CBP and will report the list of final PGAs once we receive confirmation from CBP. However, according to the International Trade Data Service, the following are examples of the federal agencies slated for ACE integration:

• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture
• International Trade Administration-Import Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of Interior

According to Cindy Allen, Executive Director of the ACE Business Office, “The PGA Message Set will expedite legitimate trade by providing a single window through which the trade community can efficiently supply required data electronically through the Automated Commercial Environment.” She also touted the progress made on ACE, since its inception, during the American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) Annual Conference in New York on June 6th. For example, CBP introduced a link from the ACE Portal to the Importer Security Filing (ISF) Portal for importers, brokers, carriers and surety accounts. CPB has established approximately 20,000 ACE portal accounts since June 2003.

Currently, data is submitted manually to PGAs through paper forms, rather than electronically or automatically. The submission of paper to an agency is obviously labor intensive and less efficient in time and money than submitting information electronically. Once the technology is completed, likely at the end of 2011, information that is now provided only to CBP will also be provided electronically to PGAs. The PGA Message Set is expected to streamline data submission.

General information about ACE, can be found at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/automated/modernization/ace/.

It’s How Much in Duty?

Many importers believe mistakenly that the price of their goods is simple to determine: cost of goods (manufacture plus materials), general expenses, profit, duty and fees. What happens when the duty bill turns out to be higher than anticipated and the goods are already sold? This can happen in three common ways:

(1) the importer did not know that there was anti-dumping duty on the products imported;
(2) the importer brought the goods in conditionally duty-free under a duty preference program, but then the duty-free treatment was denied by Customs and
(3) the importer misclassified the products.

How do we avoid these problems? Due diligence and internal controls.

First is the situation where an importer ships goods that are subject to an anti-dumping duty order (ADD) and the importer did not realize it at the time of entry. How can this happen? Here is an example. There is an ADD order on petroleum wax candles from China. An importer contracts with a Chinese manufacturer for soy wax candles, assuming that soy wax candles are outside the scope of the ADD order. Post entry of the soy wax candles, Customs sends a CBP Form 28 Request for Information, asking for a sample and description of the candle. Customs tests the sample and determines that the candles are 99% soy wax and 1% petroleum wax. Because the candles contain petroleum wax, and are Chinese-origin, they are subject to ADD.

You may ask how this happened. The importer relied on the manufacturer’s oral guarantee that the candles were 100% soy wax. However, the importer never tested the candles prior to importation—he simply accepted the manufacturer’s statement. The importer should have tested the candles prior to importation to ensure that they were 100% soy wax. If the importer knew that they were not 100% soy wax, he could have (1) priced the candles to account for the ADD, (2) sourced the candles from a different country or (3) prepared and submitted a scope ruling request to the Department of Commerce to try to obtain a ruling stating that candles that contain only 1% petroleum wax, which is considered de minimis, should not be within the scope of the order.

Next is the situation where an importer brings the goods in duty-free under a duty preference program, but then the duty-free treatment is denied by Customs. Let’s say the importer is a jewelry company that sources jewelry in India. Some jewelry imported from India is conditionally duty-free under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).

Customs issues a CPB Form 28 Request for Information, asking for an explanation of the manufacturing process in India, including information about where the gold is sourced and the processing steps taken in India. The jewelry company cannot obtain this information from the Indian manufacturer. Customs denies the GSP claim. Jewelry that was duty-free under GSP is no longer entitled to the duty preference and thus, the importer must pay duty on the imported jewelry. The importer could have avoided this situation had the company obtained the proper records from the manufacturer at the time it purchased the jewelry. Recordkeeping is an important part of good internal controls.

Last is probably the most common situation—the importer misclassified the goods. A supplier of rolls of polyurethane misclassified the goods, thinking the goods were duty-free only to find out after the goods were imported and sold that they were classified under a different provision that had 6.5% duty. The potential liability is large: (1) the importer owes duty plus interest on the previous entries; (2) the importer may be subject to penalties and (3) the goods have been sold and thus, the importer cannot recoup any of the increased duty costs.

This can occur when an importer does not conduct annual internal reviews of the company’s import operations and does not conduct regular post entry reviews. Both annual review and post entry reviews are considered best practices by Customs and are a necessary part of the exercise of reasonable care.

Don’t be surprised and find yourself asking, “It’s how much in duty?”

Are You Filing a Valid Protest with CBP?

Last month the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the importer in Estee Lauder v. United States, Slip Op. 11-23 (CIT March 1, 2011), in a decision that should remind a company fighting with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) how important it is to sufficiently describe products at issue in a protest.

Estee Lauder protested how CBP liquidated entries of its cosmetic kits. CBP classified the kits according to their individual components, rather than as the single component that gives the kit its essential character under GRI 3(b). In its protest, the company asserted that under GRI 3(b), the kits should be classified under HTSUS heading 3304, a duty-free provision for beauty or make-up preparations. Although the protest identified the contents of only one type of cosmetic kit, Estee Lauder also named entries containing a second type of kit. The second type of kit, which was not described in the protest, included a container for holding make-up brushes and was classified under HTSUS heading 4202, dutiable at 20%.

Pursuant to CBP’s request, Estee Lauder provided samples of both types of kits. CBP denied the protest by non-response under the accelerated disposition procedure. Upon denial, the company filed suit with the CIT, challenging the classification of the kits. CBP moved the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Estee Lauder failed to file a valid protest because the second type of kit was not specifically described in the protest.

By statute and regulation, a protest is valid when it “set[s] forth distinctly and specifically . . . each category of merchandise affected” and contains “a specific description of the merchandise affected.” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a). The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that this requirement exists to “compel the importer to disclose the grounds of the objection at the time when he makes his protest.” Davies v. Arthur, 96 U.S. 148 (1877). A protest must show the importer’s intent and adequately notify Customs of the protest’s “true nature and character.” Id. A century later, the Customs Court also explained that “[h]owever cryptic, inartistic, or poorly drawn a communication may be, it is sufficient as a protest . . . if it conveys enough information to apprise knowledgeable officials of the importer’s intent and the relief sought.” Mattel v. United States, 72 Cust. Ct. 257, 262 (1974).

The CIT denied CBP’s motion to dismiss, holding that Estee Lauder sufficiently described the kits in the protest and filed valid protests. Although the court agreed with CBP that it was unclear which items were included in the protested kits when comparing the protest description with the entry documents, the court found that this discrepancy was not “an insurmountable obstacle” to CBP deciding the protest. The CIT held that “[p]rotest sufficiency does not turn on whether Customs can decide the entire claims based solely on information contained in the papers submitted.” Slip-Op 11-23. Rather, “the protest is the tool whereby the collector seeks the precise facts.” Id. (citation omitted).

What can we take away from this case? Although Estee Lauder successfully defended the government’s attempt to kick the case out of court for lack of jurisdiction, it may have avoided a jurisdictional argument all together had there been no question about the merchandise included in the protests. Estee Lauder now must begin the fight on the substance on its argument: what is the correct classification? The company basically added an additional layer of litigation because it filed an unclear protest.

A good protest thoroughly explains why the classification it seeks is correct as a matter of law and fact, and why the classification CBP applied at entry was incorrect. One should not simply ask for reliquidation under the tariff provision you think is right without providing arguments why you are right. It is important to:
• Describe the product
• Set forth the specific issue
• Provide and analyze the law
• Apply the law to your facts
• Explain why your classification is correct
• Explain why CBP is wrong
• Conclude

Following these simple rules will lead to a better and more successful protest.

Expansion of Documentation Permitted to Substantiate Duty-Free Claims under FTAs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently issued a memorandum to its field regarding documents used to verify duty-free treatment of textile and wearing apparel under free trade agreements (FTAs). In this new memo, CBP has stated that it will now accept supporting documentation beyond a manufacturer’s affidavit to substantiate a trade preference claim. There had been inconsistent treatment among the ports regarding what documents were accepted in FTA verifications. Some ports were flexible, while other ports would accept only a sworn affidavit from the foreign factory. The confusion likely stemmed from a 2007 memorandum regarding manufacturer’s affidavits. The 2011 memo addresses this problem, while expanding the types of documents permitted to substantiate a duty-free claim under a FTA.

Most important, this directive signals flexibility in what documentation Customs will accept in FTA verifications. It should also prevent Import Specialists from the continued denial of claims based predominately on the format of the manufacturer’s affidavit. Of course, regardless of whether an importer relies on an affidavit or other documentation, the following information is still required:

• Statement of person with direct knowledge of the production;
• Identification of the actual production location;
• Legible, printed name of contact person, including telephone number, mailing address or email address of that person;
• Description of the goods, including fiber content, yarn count, fabric type, and commercial invoice or purchase order, as applicable.

Flexibility should help reduce risk to an importer. There is exposure to an importer when it is unable to substantiate a duty-free claim under a trade preference program to an Import Specialist’s satisfaction. Goods imported under a FTA are conditionally duty-free, meaning that if Customs denies the FTA claim, the goods will no longer be duty-free. CBP would rate advance the goods, seeking duty owed plus interest, as though they were not imported under a FTA. However, by that time, which can be several months after the entry of the goods, the merchandise typically has already been sold—thereby eliminating the ability to pass along the additional cost in duty to the customer.

The moral of the story is whether using a manufacturer’s affidavit or other document to substantiate duty-free treatment under a FTA, an importer must ask its manufacturer’s the right questions and must maintain good records to supply to CBP.

Final Rule Regarding MIDs for Textile and Apparel Importers

Importers of textile and apparel products may face higher levels of reasonable care now that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has adopted (with some changes) the interim amendments to its regulations relating to the country of origin of textile and apparel products. Specifically, CBP eliminated the Textile Declaration, which used to accompany textile and apparel imports, but now requires importers to provide a manufacturer identification code (MID), defined as the company performing the operations that confer the country of origin of the imported article under sections 102.21 or 102.22. The MIDs must appear on CBP Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate Delivery), CPB Form 7501 (Entry Summary) and all electronic data submissions requiring manufacturer information.

CBP has stated that obtaining the MID will assist CBP, who has the responsibility of preventing entry of goods with false origin information, to verify the country of origin, leading to better enforcement of trade in textile and apparel products. This may be true, but this amendment also imposes increased obligations on the textile and apparel importer to exercise reasonable care to ensure that it is providing accurate manufacturer information. Under the revised regulations, CBP has the power to reject the entry, or take other appropriate actions, which may include civil penalties under Section 1592, if CBP is not convinced that the importer exercised reasonable care in providing the MID.

There are several situations where meeting this requirement may prove difficult for importers. For example, it may be difficult to determine the MID in those situations where the textile or apparel product is made in multiple countries. In these cases, it is imperative for the importer to ask at the time of ordering for the name and address of the manufacturer, information about the origin of fabrics and information about the work performed by the manufacturer. If CBP seeks additional information about the MID, CBP will expect the importer to produce documentation to demonstrate the information it provided is accurate. Failure to do so may constitute a failure of exercise of reasonable care and lead to civil penalties.

Second, verifying MID information may also be difficult where the U.S. importer is purchasing from a seller who is not the manufacturer, but rather serves as the intermediary and may not want to disclose the MID for fear that the buyer may contact the manufacturer directly and cut the intermediary seller out of the transaction. CBP has stated that this is not a sufficient reason to provide incorrect MID information. Importers are required to know the manufacturer, regardless of whether they are purchasing directly from the manufacturer or through an intermediary. Failure to provide MID, or providing inaccurate MID for this reason could lead to civil penalties.

Finally, under section 102.21(e)(2), the country of origin of some products depends upon where “the fabric comprising the good was both dyed and printed when accompanied by two or more of the following operations….” Under this scenario, it will be difficult to determine the origin-conferring operation if more than one manufacturer performs these operations within one country. CBP has indicated that in this situation, it will consider the entity performing the final step of these origin-conferring operations as the MID. CBP has recommended that importers seek a ruling if the company is unsure about which company confers the country of origin.

Check Out Border Wars and Border Simulation

Border Wars is a television show on The National Geographic Channel featuring CBP agents/officers as they enforce U.S. laws, fight terrorism and intercept persons trying to enter the U.S. illegally. In its second season, the show appears on Wednesday evenings at 9:00 pm Eastern Time. Check the schedule for more information on the show and upcoming episodes.

Would you like to experience a “day in the life” of a CBP officer working at a port of entry at the border? In this simulation, you will be able to select to patrol at a point of entry or in the desert. As an office at the port of entry, you will encounter people trying to enter the country and make decisions on whether to grant entry or do a more intensive investigation. Will you make the correct decision? On patrol, you will patrol on an ATV or in a helicopter and make life or death decisions. Click HERE to participate in the Border Patrol Simulation. Then click on “You Are A Border Agent” to start the simulation. Enjoy! Maybe CBP will create some additional simulations for other areas such as C-TPAT Validations, Focused Assessments and more!

President Obama to Nominate Alan Bersin to Lead CBP

After a long wait, it appears that U.S. Customs and Border Protection may finally get a new Commissioner. In March, we reported that Alan Bersin was rumored to be the top nominee for the next Commissioner. Yesterday, it was announced that President Obama planned to nominate Alan Bersin to serve as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner. Mr. Bersin has served as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security since April. He held a similar position as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California and the U.S. attorney general’s Southwest border representative under the Clinton administration. Although Bersin will remain with the DHS, his new position as Commissioner will require Senate confirmation.


In addition to Bersin, President Obama also announced his intent to nominate seven other individuals. Click HERE to learn more about the nominees.

Wanted: Cheese Crackers

You’ve probably heard the old saying “curiosity killed the cat,” right? Since you are reading this article, you’ll be relieved that curiosity did not kill the Wizard, but it did lead the Wizard to kill some time learning about the things Customs and Border Protection purchases. While perusing various web sites for newsworthy or at least entertaining tidbits for the blog, an article about the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) caught the Wizard’s eye. The article announced that ICE was outsourcing its disaster recovery planning and preparations. The government outsources a lot of functions, but for some reason, the outsourcing of disaster recovery planning by an agency that is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which also responsible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) seemed a little ironic. Since CBP is also part of this group, the Wizard followed the trail (not the yellow brick road) over to the Federal Business Opportunities web site. Here you can find all sorts of opportunities to provide goods and services to the government. Not to be sidetracked by the all of the wonderful opportunities for a wise old wizard, I selected the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Customs and Border Protection. The list included some of the items you would expect to find, such as office furniture and supplies. The following is a list and links to some of the more interesting products and services sought by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. After skimming a few of these, you’ll probably be grateful you can go down to the local grocery store to buy cheese crackers without preparing a lengthy proposal. Enjoy and don’t let curiosity kill too much of your time!


C-TPAT Membership Survey – Seeks a company to perform surveys of C-TPAT Members
Membership - Seeks executives to share financial best practices
SUV Floor Mats – Seeks rubber floor mats for SUVs.
Cross-Occupational Training – Seeks variety of management and writing skills training
Flu Shots – Seeks 400 flu shots for employees
Cheese Crackers – Seeks 6400 cases of cheese crackers

CBP Announces Annual Trade Symposium

Mark your calendars and make your reservations! On August 26, 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced its annual trade symposium will take place Wednesday October 29 through Friday October 31. The agenda for the Trade Symposium and the keynote speaker will be announced at a later date on the CBP Web site. The CBP Trade Symposium will be held at the JW Marriott, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Hotel accommodations have been reserved at two hotels in downtown Washington, DC.

To obtain the latest information on the Symposium and to register on-line, visit the CBP Web site. The cost is $250.00 per person, and includes all Symposium activities. Persons interested in attending are encouraged to register early, as space is limited. Registration will open to the public on or about September 2, 2008. All registrations must be made online at the CBP Web site and will be confirmed with payment by credit card only.

Report Trade Violations to CBP

U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched a new system called e-Allegations that will make it easier for the public to report violations of import and export laws.

e-Allegations can be used to report violations related to issues such as misclassification, country of origin, health and safety, intellectual property, textiles and other trade violations. For example, if you know that a company is declaring the wrong country or origin on a product to obtain lower duty rates, that violation could be reported through the online system. The system cannot be used for reporting security issues such as potential terrorist activities or weapons of mass destruction.

If you have knowledge of a violation of United States trade law, you can access the online system at https://apps.cbp.gov/eallegations/ and click the "Report Trade Violations" button after reading the Privacy Policy. Complete the short form explaining the violation. The following information will be required; (1) type of trade violation, (2) description of what has occurred, and (3) products or goods involved and the alleged violator’s name and/or company. Other information may be included on a voluntary basis. These reports are confidential and may be made anonymously. Once you have submitted the form, a confirmation e-mail will be sent to the address you provided, if you gave one. You may also report trade violations by calling 1-800-BE-ALERT.

Priority Trade Initiatives

As most of the trade community may have noticed, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been updating their web site. It may take a little extra effort to find some of the information and get used to the new format, but in time, we will enjoy the new features and expanded information. One of the new areas created during the update is the Priority Trade Issues (PTI). PTIs are identified as high-risk areas that are likely to cause significant revenue loss, economic risk to U.S. industry or health and safety concerns to citizens.

Currently, the following seven areas are identified as PTIs:

• Agriculture


• Antidumping and Countervailing Duties


• Import Safety


• Intellectual Property Rights


• Penalties


• Revenue


• Textiles

Click HERE to learn more about each PTI.