COAC: ’10+2′ security filing should lead to early customs entry

COAC: ô10+2ö security filing should lead to early customs entry When the U.S. government later this year mandates that importers file information about their overseas shipments before the vessel departs, it should also mean companies can file their customs entries sooner so they can get early release of their goods.
   That is one of 37 recommendations made Wednesday by the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is developing a rulemaking requiring importers to provide 10 data elements about the origin and destination of their shipments that will be used to improve the security analysis for targeting high-risk shipments for inspection. The advance data rule is known as “10+2” because ocean carriers will also have to submit two pieces of information about each container onboard their vessels.
   The industry advisory group said it identified four ways that importers could satisfy the requirement to submit a security filing 24 hours prior to vessel loading:
   * Regular security filing.
   * Filing the customs entry (form 3461) plus two pieces of information not on the 3461 — the stuffing location and the name of the consolidator or freight forwarder.
   * Filing the customs entry summary (form 7501) or the foreign trade zone entry (form 214) plus the two extra pieces of information.
   * Filing the data from the 7501 or 214 forms.
   The purpose of having various filing methods is to allow importers to make one filing for customs entry and security purposes, thereby streamlining the compliance process. CBP would have the detailed and more accurate data much earlier than it receives it today, which could justify an early notice of conditional release, COAC said.
   Under current practice, CBP accepts customs entries five days before vessel arrival at the U.S. port.
   ‘If CBP is receiving the 7501 or the 214 data, that should open the door for changing the rules for when entry can be filed. Why can’t that be changed if CBP is receiving that level of information to immediately after departure of the vessel from the last port?’ said Bruce Leeds, a senior export/import advisor for Boeing Co. and COAC’s spokesman to the agency.
   The industry advisory group also recommended that CBP require a single party to submit the security filing because CBP’s systems may not be able to handle feeds from multiple filers without causing great confusion, Leeds said. CBP should leave the door open to ways for more than one party to submit pieces of the data if a feasible solution can be found, he said. CBP, however, has indicated that it is prepared to allow various parties to each submit data sets, rather than forwarding it all to a designated agent to transmit a consolidated filing.
   COAC said companies should get an electronic acknowledgement from CBP that the security filing has been completed and the cargo can be loaded. Leeds said a good model for this is the Census Bureau’s Automated Export System, which sends a message, or ITN number, confirming that the export declaration has been received.
   CBP also needs to develop a mechanism by which the importer can verify that the filing has been accomplished, see the details of the filing to check that an agent has done it correctly, and see who made the filing, COAC said. Companies want visibility to check that only authorized agents are filing on their behalf.
   COAC strongly recommended that CBP ditch its controversial plan to link the country of origin, tariff classification number and manufacturer information the way they are on the customs entry form, saying it would be a major burden on the trade.
   The CBP data elements need to be consistent with the 27 data elements developed by the World Customs Organization as part of its global security standards, COAC said. Seven of the 10 data elements are not included in the WCO data set. The industry group urged CBP to get the WCO to update its data elements to encompass the ’10+2′ definitions as well.
   CBP’s preliminary plan calls for the submission of the importer of record number, the equivalent of its IRS tax number, but COAC said it had reservations that the number could be easily abused by the wrong parties. CBP should collect the name and address of the importer in lieu of the importer of record number, COAC suggested.
   CBP should also establish some form of account-based filing model, similar to the Border Release Advanced Screen and Selectivity (BRASS) line release system used on the northern and southern borders, for repetitive, low-risk shipments, COAC said. That would spare companies from having to key in the same information and only put in the data that is different for each shipment.
   COAC also urged CBP to run extensive testing, or pilot programs in advance of implementation. Some COAC members asked CBP to do the testing in advance of its notice of proposed rulemaking.
   Assistant Commissioner Jayson Ahern said several companies have already approached CBP about testing the interoperability of CBP’s system. Testing would continue concurrently with the rulemaking process, he said, and even during the one-year soft implementation period before full enforcement goes into effect. However, CBP would not delay the rulemaking process to complete testing first, he said, adding that CBP is confident its systems can handle the new requirements.