NCBFAA Customs Committee

080123 v.1.0following CBP announcement of a systems change. With respect to the former issue, CBPsaid that they would welcome comments that extended beyond the four corners of the NPRM,including comments on such things as the record layouts. With respect to the latter, acommitment was extracted from Assistant Commissioner for the Office of InternationalAffairs and Trade Relations, Michael Mullen that the trade would have sufficient time toprogram for “10 + 2”, and not be expected to complete that task in 60 days. AssistantCommissioner Mullen indicated that the lead time would be at least 120 days.Alan Klestadt recommended that the Customs Committee focus on the broad policy issuesfor the time remaining on the agenda for this issue. The Customs Committee should form aconsensus on which basis drafting of comments on the NPRM can proceed. Alan Klestadtemphasized his belief that this is a watershed moment for NCBFAA and its members.Darrell Sekin said that NCBFAA is uniquely equipped to provide the “how to” answersfor “10 + 2”, and that if we can find a way to demonstrate that capability our members will bethe filers. The opportunity to be the “go to” guys for importers on this requirement is withinour grasp. Ken Bargteil observed that there was nothing in NPRM on “No Load” messages.Since “No Load” as a consequence of failure to make a complete and timely filing in properform had been a constant feature of discussions with the trade preparatory to the NPRM, theabsence of any mention of it is an interesting and puzzling development.Cary Weinberg inquired whether the Committee hadn’t concluded that the preparation andfiling of a “10 + 2” record was customs business. Alan Klestadt replied that makingjudgments and filings involving classification, valuation and admissibility is customsbusiness. Ken Bargteil said that he had been on both sides of this issue as the analysisproceeded and different arguments emerged. Alan Klestadt has taken both sides as well. Theconstant has been that securing the supply chain is the goal. Dan Meylor said that he thoughtthat a “No Load” was a more appropriate consequence for failure to comply with the “10 + 2”rule. He suggested that if there was no filing 24-hours prior to loading the shipment shouldnot load. If evidence for a false filing came to light after arrival, then a monetary penaltywould make sense. If security is the issue, then CBP should do their job and issue “No Load”messages when appropriate.Ken Bargteil speculated that CBP could not build a system to provide for the visibility,query capability, and logistical consequences that the prospect of “No Load” messages wouldnecessitate. It is also possible that contingencies for those features were determined to requireunacceptable security compromises. It may have been decided that the only practical meansto enforce this rule was liquidated damages. Art Litman said that the process should besimple, but that an acceptance message with identifier code was essential. Mary Jo Muoioadded that visibility is critical. Cary Weinberg questioned whether there were legalimplications with respect to various usages of the terms “file”, “transmit” and “submit” in theproposed rule. Gary Ryan said that 80% of importers have ten or fewer shipments per year,and wondered how foreign filers would be audited and held accountable for noncompliancewith the proposed powers of attorney provision. He suggested that CBP would be unable toenforce penalties against foreign filers.Alan Klestadt asked why the identifier code was not included in the NPRM, and notedthat CBP appears to have abdicated responsibility for working through the practicalconsideration for this process and have left a number of the elements for industry to workthrough. Art Litman said that we need to be positive in our comments and to make this work.Page 3 of 3