CBP's Final Rule on the Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information (Part XIV - CBP Responds to Comments)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has published a final rule which amends the Customs Regulations effective January 5, 2004 regarding the advance electronic presentation of information pertaining to cargo (sea, air, rail, or truck) prior to its being brought into, or sent from, the U.S. (See final rule for compliance dates for each transportation mode.)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
This is Part XIV of a multi-part series of summaries of this final rule, and highlights some of CBP's responses to comments on the proposed rule, as follows:
Access to air carrier's freight status notifications. When an incoming air carrier has transmitted data to CBP for incoming cargo, CBP states that a commenter inquired whether that carrier's ground handling agent, or other party, holding the goods following their arrival would need to be automated in order to have access to the electronic freight status notifications concerning the cargo.
CBP responds that participants in Air Automated Manifest System (AMS), including the incoming air carrier, must be able to honor all electronic freight status notifications transmitted by CBP. Whether the carrier elects to employ a ground handling agent or not, CBP states that the carrier is responsible for maintaining control of the cargo pending CBP disposition.
House air waybill transmissions to CBP for consolidated cargo. In response to a question asking how the carrier was to be advised that the house air waybill information had been transmitted to CBP, CBP states that it does not anticipate transmitting a message to the carrier when the house air waybills are transmitted by another party. However, the failure to transmit house air waybill information for consolidated shipments, as prescribed in 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(2), would preclude the release or transfer of any cargo covered by the consolidation. Thus, communication between the incoming carrier and any other electronic filer of house air waybill information, if applicable, would be essential.
In this latter connection, CBP states that Air AMS has a feature known as the Freight Status Query (FSQ) message. The party that transmitted the message or another Air AMS participant that has been authorized by the message originator may query the status of an air waybill record in Air AMS. CBP indicates that this feature may be invoked on a transactional basis to provide the Air AMS participant with confirmation that an air waybill is on file along with details about the record.
However, CBP states that to provide an automatic confirmation receipt message for every air waybill transmission would create substantial programming costs for CBP and Air AMS participants, and would also substantially increase data storage and communications costs. According to CBP, the FSQ message provides the same information but need only be invoked on a case-by-case basis.
Other parties may transmit data for consolidated cargo under incoming air carrier's custody. CBP states that an issue was raised as to whether a party that was both an Automated Broker Interface (ABI) filer as well as a Container Freight Station/Deconsolidator and in possession of an international carrier bond, could transmit cargo data at ports where the consolidation cargo remained under the custody of the air carrier.
CBP responds that a party authorized to transmit electronic cargo information, as provided in 19 CFR 122.48a(c)(1) and (d)(2), will be able to do so, even if the cargo remains in the custody of the incoming carrier.
Procedures for CBP inspection of air cargo. In response to a comment seeking additional explanation concerning what procedures an air carrier would need to follow if cargo were targeted for inspection by CBP, CBP states that if it is found that a physical inspection of the cargo is necessary, CBP will electronically notify the carrier or other cargo custodian and make arrangements for its examination. In so doing, CBP states that it would work with the carrier to ascertain an appropriate location to examine the potentially high-risk cargo.
"Permit to proceed" air cargo with insufficient data. According to CBP, a comment suggested that air cargo that would arrive in the U.S. on a permit to proceed from the port of arrival should be allowed to move to the port of unlading notwithstanding that a hold was placed on the air waybill covering the cargo due to insufficient data. CBP responds that if it determines that a physical inspection is necessary or if additional information is required, the cargo will be held at the port of first arrival pending resolution of the matter.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 01/02/04 news, 04010220, for Part XIII of this series. See ITT's Online Archives or 12/09/03 news, 03120915, for Part II, which includes a list of CBP contacts.)
CBP final rule (CBP Dec. 03-32), FR Pub 12/05/03, available at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-29798.pdf