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.

US-Korea Trade Agreement Moves Forward, Could Signal More Trade Liberalization

By Edward Steiner

(Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.)

The following article is excerpted from North American Free Trade & Investment Report (NAFTIR), also published by Thomson Reuters. Since 1992, key players in law, business, and government have relied on NAFTIR to stay on top of the legal and regulatory developments that critically impact companies involved in cross-border trade and investment in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. For more information or to request a sample issue, go to:

http://www.wtexecutive.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.section.Section_1013_sub_options

Also of interest is Mexico, Tax, Law & Business Briefing http://www.wtexec.com/mextlbtp.html

Even before the effects of the November midterm elections are being felt and the new slate of largely Republican members has been ushered in, the Obama administration is already reprioritizing its agenda and focusing on compromise. Trade policy, relegated to back burner status for much of the past two years, is re-emerging as an area in which the two parties can find a semblance of common ground.

Politics aside, trade is an important part of the American economy. In 2008, exports alone sustained over 10 million domestic jobs – jobs that often earn 13% to 18% more than the national average. The administration has launched a National Export Initiative (NEI) to double exports and add two million jobs within the next five years, and trade agreements are necessarily part of that initiative.

The recently agreed U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement (KORUS) could be the jewel in the NEI crown and a win, to some extent, for both sides of the aisle. The FTA with South Korea, America’s seventh-largest trading partner, would be the largest such agreement since NAFTA in 1994 and would eliminate tariffs on a majority (over 95%) of consumer and industrial goods within a five-year period. Now comes the hard part – the agreement has to move through the legislatures in both countries. Though there is optimism regarding passage of the agreement, there is also a not insignificant amount of opposition among lawmakers in both the U.S. and Korea, and finally implementing the long-stalled pact is far from a pro forma exercise.

U.S.-Korea Trade in Focus

The South Korean economy is the fourth-largest in Asia and the twelfth-largest in the world. It is home to multinational companies such as Samsung Electronics Co. and Hyundai Motor Co., which undoubtedly boost Korean export numbers. South Korean exports account for about half of the country’s gross domestic product. The primary products Korea ships abroad are semiconductors, automobiles and parts, computers, telecom equipment, petrochemicals and textiles. Many of these products arrive on the shores of the U.S., Korea’s second-largest export market.

Largely as a result of these high-value, high-tech products, the size and health of South Korea’s exports continue to grow, with November shipments to the U.S. alone increasing by 25.2% compared to 2009. November was the 13th month in a row Korea’s export sales increased, earning the country a $39.11 billion trade surplus since January. Exports are also benefitting from a weaker won, making South Korean goods cheaper on the international market.

U.S. exports to South Korea have been unable to maintain volume parity with U.S. imports from that country. While the U.S. enjoyed a $7.1 billion service trade surplus with Korea in 2008, in bilateral goods trade the U.S. ran an $11 billion deficit in 2009 and a $6.6 billion shortfall in the first nine months of 2010. The primary products the United States currently exports to South Korea are corn, petrochemicals, organic chemicals, industrial machines, semiconductors, and civilian aircraft and related parts. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) notes that manufactured goods account for over 80% of total U.S. goods exported to Korea and that these shipments sustained 230,000 U.S. jobs in 2008.

A study by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) claims that gross U.S. goods exports to South Korea will increase by about $11 billion as a result of tariff cuts under the pending FTA alone. Imports, on the other hand, are expected to rise only by about $6.7 billion, helping to improve the U.S. trade deficit with Korea. Ironically, government analysis also predicts that an overall increase in trade as a result of KORUS may in fact cause the U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world to rise.

Cars and Beef

The United States and South Korea concluded FTA negotiations in 2007, but concerns among U.S. lawmakers about access to the Korean market for automobiles and beef have stalled efforts to implement the agreement. Of the big three U.S. automakers, Ford was the most vehement in opposing the agreement, running advertisements noting that for every 52 Korean cars sold in the U.S. only one U.S. car is sold in Korea. Chrysler expressed similar concerns while General Motors, owner of South Korea-based Daewoo, did not comment. A study conducted by the United Auto Workers echoed Fords’ concerns. The UAW claimed that 70% of the 2009 U.S. trade deficit with South Korea - $8.9 billion – was due to the deficit in automobile sales.

An agreement reached in early December 2010, however, has some of these earlier critics rethinking their stances. Ford now supports the Korea FTA and, breaking with labor unions’ traditional opposition, so does the UAW, which claims the agreement will increase U.S. auto exports.

The December agreement includes some significant changes related to automobiles. The United States can keep its 2.5% auto tariff for five years, while Korea must immediately cut its auto tariff from 8% to 4%. U.S. 25% truck tariffs can be maintained until the eighth year after implementation of the FTA and must be phased out by year ten, while South Korea will cut its 10% U.S. truck tariff immediately. Finally, Korea must also immediately cut its tariff on electric cars from 8% to 4%, with both countries required to phase out such tariffs by year five. The new agreement also allows U.S. carmakers to sell in the Korean market up to 25,000 cars that fail to meet strict Korean safety standards as long as the autos meet U.S. standards. The obligation of U.S. car companies to abide by Korean fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission targets will also be eased, allowing U.S. autos that fall within 19% of the standard. Finally, the U.S. can levy a safeguard against any surges of autos from South Korea for up to ten years after all tariffs on a given product have been phased out.

The progress made on autos was not mirrored in the negotiations on U.S. beef products. Specifically, South Korea will maintain its import ban on U.S. beef sourced from cattle over 30 months old, which was first imposed because of a 2003 case of mad cow disease in Washington state. U.S. beef industry groups have indicated that this situation is not overly worrisome, as a 2008 U.S.-Korea protocol is already bolstering beef exports to Korea, which are expected to rise even further with the phase-out of the 40% Korean tariff under the FTA. However, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he is “deeply disappointed” with the lack of progress on the current ban, and he and other legislators from heavily agricultural states have indicated that they may not support the FTA until their concerns are addressed.

Outside of automobiles and beef, the KORUS agreement includes substantial long-term benefits for many other sectors of the U.S. economy. Perhaps most valuably, U.S. service companies will enjoy increased access to the $560 billion Korean services market, an industry in which the U.S. already enjoys a trade surplus with Korea. This includes accounting, health care, education, legal, finance and telecommunications services, areas in which the U.S. excels. In agriculture, U.S. food processors, ranchers and farmers will enjoy increased access to the Korean market, as high Korean tariffs will be eliminated along with other non-tariff barriers. With respect to manufactured goods, the National Association of Manufacturers expects the already large volume of U.S. manufactured goods exported to South Korea to increase by over one-third. Other notable provisions of KORUS include increased access to the Korean government procurement market, improved enforcement of intellectual property rights in Korea, and a requirement that Korea uphold and respect fundamental labor laws in such a way that ensures a level playing field for U.S. workers.

Edward Steiner is Director of Trade and Legislative Affairs for Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., resident in the Washington, D.C., office. Mr. Steiner consults for a diverse client base of private industry, trade associations and foreign governments on a wide range of trade compliance issues including: consumer product safety, food safety, environmental protection and labor standards.

Recent News In International Trade

CBP Requests Comments on CBP Form 28

On November 17, 2010, U. S. Customs and Border Protection issued a request for comments regarding CBP Form 28. The Request for Information, CBP 28, is used as an informal method for CBP to request and review import records when they need additional information not provided by the documentation submitted.

The comments should address:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and
(e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs).

Comments should be submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

H.R. 6410 Introduced - Requires 100% Screening on All-Cargo Aircraft

On November 16, 2010, a new air cargo security bill was introduced into the House of Representatives. H.R. 6410, the "Air Cargo Security Act," would require systems to be established for the inspection and screening of cargo traveling on all-cargo aircraft "operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or interstate air transportation." The bill would require that the screening for cargo intended for all-cargo aircraft "provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage." The bill also provides for training for air cargo handlers and regular inspection of air cargo facilities. consequences imposed for a facility not in compliance

If the bill is approved, 50 percent of the cargo intended for all-cargo aircraft will be inspected no later than 18 months after enactment and 100 percent screening of the cargo within three years of enactment.



Failure to Comply with OFAC Subpoena Results in $225,000 Fine

OFAC issued a subpoena to Pinnacle Aircraft Parts, Inc. related to an investigation into the company’s involvement in the sale of a jet engine that may have been ultimately destined for Iran. In response to the subpoena, Pinnacle did not supply a copy of an email that indicated the engine was destined for Iran. Obviously, the email might have shown awareness by the company, which could have provided the basis for criminal prosecution.

Although the email in question was provided to Pinnacle’s attorney, it was not included in the submission of documents requested by OFAC. Pinnacle decided not to produce the email based on the advice of counsel; however, they are legally responsible for compliance with the subpoena and the actions of their agents. The end result – a $225,000 fine issued by OFAC. The penalty was slightly mitigated based on Pinnacle’s reliance on the advice of counsel and prior good record.



FTA Update

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the Andean Trade Preference Act/Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPA/ATPDEA) are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. Possible extension of these acts is being discussed in the House and Senate.

The U.S and Korea have not reached a final agreement on the U.S. - Korea FTA. Terms that have been subject of much discussion include unrestricted imports of automobiles and beef into South Korea. Given the impasse, an agreement will not likely be reached this year. President Obama pledges to keep moving forward so that this agreement may be ready for Congress in early 2011.

SAVE Award Winner

In 2009, President Obama introduced the SAVE Award (Securing American’s Value and Efficiency). The program seeks ideas from federal employees on how the make government more effective and efficient. Over 18,000 entries were received. The winner was Trudy Givens who works for the bureau of Prisons in Wisconsin. Trudy suggested“opt in” features for the approximately 8,000 copies of the Federal Register being mailed every day. Statute requires the government to make hard copies available; however, most of the public views them online. If recipients are allowed to opt-in to receive hard copies, the government could save printing and postage costs.

As this year’s winner, Trudy will have an opportunity to meet the President to discuss her idea with him. All of the SAVE Award submissions have been sent to the agencies for potential action and inclusion in the 2012 Budget. Last year, a total of 20 SAVE ideas representing millions of dollars in savings made it into the President’s FY2011 budget.



"If You See Something, Say Something"

The Department of Homeland Security announced the expansion of the “"If You See Something, Say Something" campaign. The phrase was originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority after 9/11 and has spread to other cities across the country. The newest campaign encourages travelers and employees in the hotel industry to report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper law enforcement authorities.

Trade Agreement Tuesday

Welcome to Trade Agreement Tuesdays! For the next 15 or so weeks, we will review the various free trade agreements and preferential programs.

Organizations often need to find ways to reduce costs involved in importing. One of the most obvious ways of reducing costs is finding lower-priced goods; however, there are other avenues to explore. The United States is a party to several programs designed to reduce and/or eliminate duties on certain merchandise from designated countries as well as provide benefits for exported products. Trade agreements are usually bilateral or multilateral. Bilateral agreements involve two countries, such as the U.S. - Chile, U.S. - Bahrain and U.S. Peru Free Trade Agreements. Multilateral agreements include more than two countries, such as NAFTA and DR-CAFTA.

Each program has different requirements regarding allowance of the special duty treatment. Some of these programs are subject to change. The potential for importing goods free of duty and saving your company money by using one of the free trade agreements sounds like a great solution. However, the agreements are quite complex and products must meet certain rules in order to qualify. It’s important for importers to understand the requirements for special treatment before making the claim. Making incorrect claims for duty-free treatment could result in unexpected costs, such as payment of additional duties and penalties.

Click HERE to view a timeline containing the various trade agreements and the dates of implementation.

We will take each agreement/program in order of implementation. Next week, we will begin our study with the Generalized System of Preferences.