CBP changes targeting rules for container inspections

CBP changes targeting rules for container inspections Representatives from the import-export industry complained Tuesday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not provide any advance notice of changes to its system for targeting high-risk shipments for inspection.
   On May 1 the border security agency modified its targeting process to allow its computer system to put automated holds on cargo rather than leaving the initial decision in the hands of a Customs officer after receiving an internal flag from the system. The Automated Targeting System scores shipments on a variety of weighted risk factors based on information about the origin, destination and parties involved from shipping documents, intelligence and historical shipping patterns. Many of the automated holds were triggered by additional information gained from the customs entry while the cargo was in transit on the road or rail.
   The change to reduce the agent’s discretion came in response to a recent report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General that criticized the targeting system. Last year CBP implemented a zero-tolerance policy towards marine terminals that inadvertently release containers to the public that still had an active “hold” order on it from CBP. Many of the mistakes were caused by last-minute detention requests and miscommunication because some terminals did not have direct contact with CBP’s communication system and received container status information from ocean carriers.
   Members of the Department of Homeland Security’s Commercial Operations Advisory Committee said at the group’s quarterly meeting that the agency should have notified them and the industry at large about the change to the targeting system that could affect the number of containers delayed for inspection. They said the trade wasn’t advised of the new enforcement policy until two weeks after the change was made, and that the SAFE Port Act stipulates that COAC be consulted on important trade matters.
   “I’m concerned that this was a material change to the supply chain and affected many people,” said Curtis Spencer, president of IMS Worldwide, a Houston-based trade advisory services firm. “I don’t know how you guys are defining that material change, but it was material to a lot of us.”
   “It was an economic burden to a lot of people,” Federico Zuniga, president of the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, chimed in.
   Earl Agron, vice president of security for ocean carrier APL, said that implementing such a change without talking to people caused confusion and increased vulnerability.
   “There could have been holds that were missed because the process changed. We didn’t know what to do when we saw holds on a box on the rails. We didn’t know whether to take the box off in Chicago even though it was destined for another location,” he said, referring to inland transportation once the container left the port. Customs officers at the ports were also confused, he said.
   Deputy Commissioner Deborah Spero acknowledged the agency should have communicated better, but said it had to move quickly to fix the targeting system.
   COAC members recommended that CBP have a point of contact and back up contact on the committee that it can quickly notify about events in the future, and that it go through major trade associations that it already has established relations with.
   “You did a wonderful job about inflicting consciousness in the industry” about improper gate releases of containers last year, noted Christopher Koch, president of the World Shipping Council.
   CBP officials said they were working with port officials and the trade to resolve problems surrounding permits to transfer containers and in-bond shipments that are provisionally released to the inland destination.