NOTICE: The Shutdown and the October 2013 Broker Exam

Because CBP is considered an essential agency, CBP is not as affected by the government shutdown as other federal agencies.  Based on CBP's briefing and AAEI's newsletter, the Customs Broker Exam will proceed on Oct. 7. 

April 2013 Preliminary Answers

Determining potential answers for the broker's exam questions after the test is different in a few key ways from taking the test, but none is more key than the fact that we have more than four hours to give our answers. That means that we can take the time to research as much as we need to in order to get the most accurate (though still unofficial) document possible to all of you.

Click here to get our preliminary unofficial exam answers as a free download from our online checkout system.



As always, remember that these answers represent only our opinion. The official answers will come from Customs and Border Protection in a few weeks and will be posted on their site. In other words, we probably answered the majority of the questions correctly, but these answers do not guarantee whether or not you've passed; it merely is presented as a helpful tool for broker students who are (quite understandably) eager to have any idea of where they stand.

If you would like to share your answers, explanations and comments, we invite you to post them as comments to this blog; however, we ask that comments be professional and to the point. We cannot respond to all of the comments, but this forum will provide you an opportunity to converse with each other.

Happy browsing!

April 2012 Preliminary Answers

Determining potential answers for the broker's exam questions after the test is different in a few key ways from taking the test, but none is more key than the fact that we have more than four hours. That means that we can take the time to research as much as we need to in order to get the most accurate (though still unofficial) document possible to all of you.

Click here to get our preliminary unofficial exam answers as a free download from our online checkout system.



As always, remember that these answers represent only our opinion. The official answers will come from Customs and Border Protection in a few weeks and will be posted on their site. In other words, we probably answered the majority of the questions correctly, but these answers do not guarantee whether or not you've passed; it merely is presented as a helpful tool for broker students who are (quite understandably) eager to have any idea of where they stand.

If you would like to share your answers, explanations and comments, we invite you to post them as comments to this blog; however, we ask that comments be professional and to the point. We cannot respond to all of the comments, but this forum will provide you an opportunity to converse with each other.

Happy browsing!

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.

CBP Posts Answer Key to October 2011 Broker Exam

U.S. Customs and Border Protection posted the answer key to the October 2011 customs broker exam. We will review and determine whether any questions are protestable. Exam key can be found at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/trade_programs/broker/broker_exam/exam_and_key_downloads/oct_11_answer_key.ctt/oct_11_answer_key.pdf

ABI Notice regarding the Classification of Sets

On Oct. 6, 2011, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a notice through the Automated Broker Interface regarding sets classified in accordance with GRI 3(b) or 3(c). Specifically, CBP reminded ABI users to report in column 30 the HTSUS number of the part of the set that provides the duty rate for the set when the set is classified pursuant to GRI 3(b) or 3(c). Users should precede this HTSUS number with a SPI of “X.”

However, the set classification does not stop there. Each article included in the set needs to be classified separately and reported on a separate line, as though it was not part of a set. Those articles of the set that do not provide the duty rate for the set as a whole should be preceded with a SPI of “V.” Brokers will also need to report the quantity and value attributed to each article with the “V” SPI.

Here is where you can find this message on the Cargo Systems Messaging Service on CBP’s website: http://apps.cbp.gov/csms/viewmssg.asp?Recid=18488&page=1&srch_argv=&srchtype=&btype=abi&sortby=&sby=

More “Free” Trade Anyone?

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved the bills sponsored by Representative Eric Cantor and a co-sponsor that is the first step in implementing the U.S. Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. The entire House of Representatives and the Senate are expected to vote on the bills the week of October 10.

Congressional action on these agreements has been a long time coming. The parties entered into the U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement on June 30, 2007 The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was entered into on November 22, 2006, as amended by both governments on June 28, 2007 (Colombia TPA). The parties entered into the U.S.- Panama Trade Promotion Act on June 28, 2007 (Panama TPA).

Both the House and the Senate are expected to pass the three bills, referred to as the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the United States- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act and the United States- Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. Although President Obama is expected to sign the bills into law rather quickly, each Agreement will not take effect until the United States is satisfied that each country will be in compliance with the terms of the Agreements, respectively. For example, there is some concern that labor rights issues could delay the effect date of the Colombia Agreement. It is unlikely that any terms of the agreements will change between now and the enactment date. However, it is doubtful that the Korea FTA, Colombia TPA or the Panama TPA will take effect before the beginning of 2012. It could take up to several months for the President to certify that the countries are in compliance.

Korea FTA H.R. 3080

Colombia TPA H.R. 3078

Panama TPA H.R. 3079

October 2011 Broker Exam - Preliminary Answers

Determining potential answers for the broker's exam questions after the test is different in a few key ways from taking the test, but none is more key than the fact that we have more than four hours. That means that we can take the time to research as much as we need to in order to get the most accurate (though still unofficial) document possible to all of you.

Click here to get our preliminary unofficial exam answers as a free download from our online checkout system.



As always, remember that these answers represent only our opinion. The official answers will come from Customs and Border Protection in a few weeks and will be posted on their site. In other words, we probably answered the majority of the questions correctly, but these answers do not guarantee whether or not you've passed; it merely is presented as a helpful tool for broker students who are (quite understandably) eager to have any idea of where they stand.

If you would like to share your answers, explanations and comments, we invite you to post them as comments to this blog; however, we ask that comments be professional and to the point. We cannot respond to all of the comments, but this forum will provide you an opportunity to converse with each other.

Happy browsing!

Announcement: October 2011 CBP Broker Exam Answers

One common question we're receiving is "Are you/when are you going to post answers to the October Exam?"

Have no fear! We have begun researching and answering questions, and are planning on releasing a preliminary set of answers on Friday.

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.

Brokers Beware: FDA Issues Letter to Industry about Import Review Process

On September 6, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a letter to the importing community, in which the agency provided recommendations to facilitate the FDA import entry review process for medical and non-medical radiation emitting electronic products. Specifically, the FDA recommends the use of Affirmation of Compliance (AofC) codes at the time of entry. The FDA believes that submitting AofC codes when entering radiation emitting electronic products will expedite the admissibility process by decreasing the likelihood that the FDA will hold your shipment for further review during the FDA’s import screening process.

The letter explains that Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) regulates radiation emitting electronic products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §360 and implementing FDA and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations. Importers of radiation emitting electronic products subject to “federal performance standards” must submit information regarding each product to the FDA and CBP at entry on Form FDA-2877 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM080778.pdf.

Imported products subject to a federal performance standard include:
• Television receivers and video display monitors with cathode ray tubes only (21 CFR §1020.10)
• Diagnostic x-ray systems and their major components (21 CFR§ 1020.30) (Includes medical x-ray, fluoroscopy)
• Cabinet x-ray systems (21 CFR §1020.30) (Includes airport security x-ray system)
• Microwave ovens (21 CFR §1030.10) (Includes consumer and commercial)
• Laser products (21 CFR §1040.10) (Includes laser pointers, laser light shows, industrial laser, medical laser, surveying, leveling and alignment lasers)
• Sunlamp products and ultraviolet lamps intended for use in sunlamp products (21 CFR §1040.20) (Includes tanning beds/booths)
• High intensity mercury vapor discharge lamps (21 CFR §1040.30) (and metal halide lamps, for illumination)
• Ultrasonic therapy products (21 CFR §1050.10) (for use in physical therapy).

Form FDA-2877 is not required for imported medical radiation emitting electronic products that are not subject to federal performance standards, which include radiation therapy devices, linear accelerators, diagnostic ultrasounds for imaging, microwave diathermy, shortwave diathermy, hearing aids, cardiac radiofrequency ablation devices, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters. Although these products have reporting requirements, they do not require the form.

All radiation emitting electronic products will have an AofC code, but vary depending on the product and whether it is subject to a federal performance standard. Here is a sampling of the types of Radiation Emitting Electronic Product Affirmation of Compliance Codes:

• ACC --- EPRC Accession Number: Used as the Electronic Product Radiation Control Product report Accession Number issued by FDA identified in the FDA line. Example: ACC 102XXX
• RA1 – EPRC Product Declaration A1 (FD-2877): Transmitted for products that were manufactured prior to the effective date of an applicable performance standard. The date of manufacture serves as the qualifier.
• RA2 – EPRC Product Declaration A2 (FDA-2877): Transmitted for products that are excluded from the applicability clause or definition in the standard or by FDA written guidance. You must provide the specific reason for exclusion.
• RA6 – EPRC Product Declaration A6 (FDA-2877): Transmitted when the products are prototypes intended for ongoing product development by the importer. The products must be labeled “FOR TEST/EVALUATION ONLY,” and be exported, destroyed or held for future testing, but not distributed. A qualifier is not required, but the quantity is required at the FDA line level.
• RB1 – EPRC Product Declaration B1 (FD-2877): Transmitted when the most current annual report or product report contains performance standards compliance information.

For a complete list of AofC Codes, please see appendix to the Sept.6, 2011 letter http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/ucm271180.htm and to the March 24, 2011 letter. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/ucm248321.htm

Reminder re Deadline for Customs Broker Exam

As indicated in the Notice of Examination that CBP published earlier this month, the deadline to file an application to sit for the Customs Broker License Examination is close of business this Friday, September 2, 2011. CBP will not accept applications received after Friday. This means that a postmark on Friday, September 2 is not sufficient-- CBP must actually receive the application. You can find a copy of the examination application by clicking on form number CBP 3124E.

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 Posts Notice of Customs Broker License Examination

US Customs and Border Protection has posted its Notice of Examination for the October 3, 2011 Customs Broker License Exam. To sit for the broker exam, CBP must receive and accept your exam application Form 3124E and fee of $200 by close of business on Friday, September 2, 2011. The exam application can be found on CBP’s website, under Form 3124E at http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/CBP_Form_3124E.pdf. CBP will accept payment by cash, check or money order, but does not accept credit cards for the $200 exam fee.

The broker exam lasts four hours and consists of 80 multiple choice questions on the follow topics:
• Entry
• Classification
• Country of origin
• Trade agreements
• Antidumping and countervailing duty
• Valuation
• Broker responsibilities
• Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures (FP&F)
• Protests
• Marking
• Prohibited and restricted merchandise
• Drawback
• Intellectual property rights
• Other areas germane to a broker’s duties

CBP reports that the October 2011 exam will test the above topics based on the following reference materials:

• 2011 version of HTSUS (without supplements)
• 19 CFR parts 0-199 (revised as of April 1, 2011)
• Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (ABI User requirements CATAIR)
o Appendix B- Valid Codes
o Appendix D- Metric Conversion
o Appendix E- Valid Entry Numbers
o Appendix G- Common Errors
o Glossary
• CBP Form 7501 Entry Summary Instructions
• Custom Directives
o CD 3550-055, Instructions for Deriving Manufacturer/Shipper ID Code
o CD 3550-079A, Ultimate Consignee at time of Entry or Release
o CD 3530-002A, Right to Make Entry*
o CD 5610-002, Standard Guidelines for the Input of Names and Addresses into ACS Files

Please note that CBP will not provide materials. Applicants may use any written materials, but may not use computers, phones, PDAs, or other electronics during the exam.
* BCP Learning added a lesson regarding CD 3530-002A, Right to Make Entry to Module 9 of its Customs Broker Examination Course.

State Department Issues Guidance Statement Regarding Implementation of Dodd-Frank to Address Problems with Conflict Minerals

Do you import jewelry, or serve as a broker for a jewelry importer? If so, then Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) will be of particular interest to you. Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank addresses the problem of the exploitation and trade of “conflict minerals” sourced from the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Conflict minerals include gold, columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite (tin), wolframite (tungsten) or their derivatives.

Section 1502 instructs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in consultation with the Department of State (State Department) to promulgate regulations requiring certain companies to report annually on their due diligence activities on the source and chain of custody of conflict minerals. Specifically, the State Department is instructed “to provide guidance to commercial entities seeking to exercise due diligence on and formalize the origin and chain of custody of conflict minerals used in the products and on their suppliers to ensure that conflict minerals mused in the products of such suppliers do not directly or indirectly finance armed conflict or result in labor or human rights violations.”

The SEC intends to issue regulations pursuant to Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank by the end of 2011. In the meantime, the State Department has urged that companies begin to perform their due diligence on the source and chain of custody of conflict minerals they are using in production of products and importing into the U.S. The agency instructs that such due diligence will provide useful information that will assist the State Department and the SEC in meeting Dodd-Frank’s goal of preventing further conflict in the eastern DRC. In its Guidance Statement, http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/diamonds/docs/168632.htm, the State Department has suggested that “companies should begin immediately to structure their supply chain relationships in a responsible and productive manner to encourage legitimate, conflict-free trade, including conflict-free minerals sourced from the DRC and the Great Lakes region.”

The State Department encouraged companies to follow Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidance and framework when developing and implementing their own due diligence plans:

• Establish strong company management systems;
• Identify and assess risk in the supply chain;
• Design and implement a strategy to respond to identified risks;
• Conduct supply chain due diligence at specific points in the chain (preferably by independent third party); and
• Report on findings from supply chain due diligence.

The State Department will consider whether to revise its Guidance Statement after the SEC issues its regulations.

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.

Importer Needed Assist in Court to Help with His Half Million Dollar Assist Problem

On June 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) found that both importer Trek Leather, Inc. and the company’s president and sole shareholder, Harish Shadadpuri, were grossly negligent in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592 for the failure to report fabric assists in the dutiable value of imported men’s suits. Although it is expected that the defendants will appeal the CIT’s decision, if the decision stands, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the amount of $45,245.39 plus interest in unpaid customs duty and $534,420.32 in penalties. Maybe the defendants are lucky – Customs had sought damages in the amount of over $2.3 million for fraudulently omitting the value of the assists on the entry documentation.

How did we get here? Trek is an importer of men’s suits. Mr. Shadadpuri, through the corporate entity, purchased fabric that he provided to the foreign manufacturer who incorporated the fabric into the suits that were later imported by Trek into the United States. In August 2004, the import specialist investigated Trek and discovered that Trek consistently neglected to declare the assists in the transaction value of the imported suits. The problem for the defendants is that two years earlier, Mr. Shadadpuri had also failed to declare assists for another company he owned, Mercantile Wholesale, Inc. Mercantile had paid approximately $46,000 in unpaid duty and interest for its failure to include the assist in the dutiable value, but Customs did not seek penalties. Apparently, Mr. Shadadpuri did not learn his lesson.

Customs alleged that Mr. Shadadpuri, as the owner of both Mercantile and Trek, should have known to include the value of the assists in the value of the imported suits. In failing to do so, Customs instituted an action against Trek and Shadadpuri, alleging that (1) they committed fraud by knowingly and intentionally omitting the value of the assists, (2) in the alternative, they were grossly negligent in omitting the value of the assists and (3) that Shadadpuri could be held personally liable.

This decision is significant for several reasons. First, although Trek was the importer of record and is a corporation and separate entity from Shadadpuri, the court found that Shadadpuri as the sole owner of Trek was personally liable for the back duty and the penalties. That means that if his company does not have the money to pay the penalties, he must pay it personally with his own assets—his bank account, house, car—anything he owns to pay off the debt to Customs. It is one thing if the company you own goes out of business; it is entirely another thing when you are not protected by the corporate veil. This should serve as a wakeup call to small and privately-owned importers.

Second, not having internal controls in place to ensure that assists are captured in transaction value can lead to big problems with Customs. Even if Customs did not seek penalties in the amounts of $500,000 + (grossly negligent) or $2.3+million (fraud), paying $40,000+ in unpaid duty and interest in one lump sum, as opposed to over the course of shipments, is not always easy when a company may not have the cash flow. Moreover, the goods have already been sold, making it impossible to recoup the additional duty from the customer.

Third, this case cautions an importer that once Customs discovers you have made a material error, particularly one that affects the value of goods and thereby the amount of duty collected, an importer would be wise not to make the same mistake again! The reason Customs and the court threw the book at the importer in this case was because Shadadpuri made the same mistake just two years earlier and admitted to the import specialist that he knew that Trek should have declared the assists. Shadadpuri’s credibility was questioned.
Finally, Customs is stepping up enforcement of importation activities. Customs considers assists a red flag issue for importers and will continue to pursue those that do not declare them. Customs has shown that it will even go after an importer for fraud, if the facts support it. This could lead to penalties large enough to put a company out of business and if nothing else, also leads to large legal bills that probably could have been avoided.

Moral of the story: declare assists, put internal controls in place and if Customs calls saying it is investigating you, say nothing and immediately contact customs counsel.

The case can be found at:
"http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op11/11-68.pdf">

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?”