CBP's Seventh Version of its FAQ on Mandatory Advance Electronic Information Requirements for Inbound Air Cargo (Part II)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued its seventh version (dated January 12, 2005) of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and responses regarding its final rule requiring the advance electronic presentation of information for inbound air cargo.
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 II of a multi-part series of summaries on this January 12, 2005 FAQ, and covers the new questions and answers added to FAQs 37, 4, and 36. (See ITT's Online Archives or 01/24/05 news, 05012410, for Part I.)
FAQ 37 - Shipper/Consignee Information (PO Box as Acceptable Address)
CBP has added a new question to FAQ 37 on whether a Post Office (P.O.) Box may be considered an acceptable address for shipper or consignee information.
CBP responds that a P.O. Box may appear as a shipper or consignee address only in those limited cases where it is the only identifiable physical location where the cargo originated or will be delivered. In certain foreign countries, P.O. Boxes may be the only address convention available. However, CBP states that P.O. Box mailing addresses must not be provided in lieu of a physical address when a more precise physical address may be identified.
CBP states that in any case, the identification of a P.O. Box as an address in either the shipper or consignee address field may subject the cargo to further scrutiny by CBP Officers.
FAQ 4 - Participant Procedures (Notification to Local Port)
CBP has added a new question to FAQ 4 on whether a Container Freight Station (CFS) or Express Consignment Carrier Facility (ECCF) should also notify the local CBP port where it intends to participate in the Air Automated Manifest System (AMS) prior to such participation.
CBP responds that yes, a CFS or ECCF must notify the local CBP port prior to beginning Air AMS participation.
FAQ 36 - Code-Share Flights (Flights that Only Transit Locations in the U.S.)
CBP has added a new question to FAQ 36 asking if two or more carriers participate in a code-share arrangement for flights that merely transit locations in the U.S., could each of them transmit Air AMS information.
CBP responds that the Department of Transportation (DOT) does not approve code-share arrangements for two or more carriers operating code-share flights that merely transit locations in the U.S.
For example, an air carrier may operate a flight that travels from Tokyo, Japan, stops in Anchorage, Alaska and proceeds to Paris, France.
CBP states that in this case, CBP port directors may permit each carrier participating in the code-share relationship to report its own cargo information without documentation of code-share approval by DOT under certain conditions listed in CBP's FAQ. (See FAQ for the list of six conditions.)
CBP's seventh version of its air FAQ (dated 01/12/05) available at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/import/communications_to_industry/advance_info/air_faq_cargo.ctt/air_faq_cargo.doc