CBP Should Expand Definition of 'Corporate Compliance Activity' within Part 111, RILA Says

DHS and CBP should reevaluate and rewrite 19 CFR Part 111 regulations that outline "corporate compliance activity," RILA said (here). The regulations currently define such work as ""activity performed by a business entity to ensure that documents for a related business entity or entities are prepared and filed with CBP using 'reasonable care,' but such activity does not extend to the actual preparation or filing of the documents or their electronic equivalents." The definition should be "reviewed and updated to reflect current business practices," it said. "For example, the definition should be expanded to allow the ability for importers to file and prepare documents for related business entities."

Also of concern are CBP's Importer Security Filing regulations, said RILA. While CBP says a manufacturer identification number can be used to show the last party to come in contact with the container, the manufacturer may not always be the last party to come in contact with the container before shipment, it said. "For example, a trading company, freight forwarder or consolidator could all be the party to stuff and seal a container prior to shipment to the U.S."

CBP should also update its record storage regulations to better reflect "technological realities and advances," RILA said. "RILA encourages CBP to take this opportunity to set a standard for the implementation of scanning technology. Information stored through scanning in easily searchable and would increase the ease of retrieving records such as entry number and bill of lading number. "DHS should also review CBP trade program documentation requirements and require an importer to provide such information upon CBP request rather than with each entry, the group said. Other issues mentioned in the filing include regulations for antidumping/countervailing duties, CBP port operations rules and pilot programs.

Regulations that require additional information on some chemical products deserve a new look from CBP, said the American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI). The provision within 19 CFR Part 141 that requires chemical registry numbers on the invoices for chemicals within Harmonized Tariff Schedule chapters 27, 28 and 29 is outdated, said AAEI (here). "Since 2004-05, the HTS no longer distinguishes between products listed and not listed in the Chemical Appendix for duty purposes as the duty rates are now the same," it said (only statistical suffixes do). As a result, the need for including chemical registry numbers on invoices, "which may have been justified at one time, no longer exists."

In response to chemical industry concerns on the regulations, the Chemicals Center for Excellence and Expertise suggested that the companies instead submit a database with product composition and registry numbers, said AAEI. That idea is also problematic due to the large volume of products involved and how quickly the database would be made obsolete because the of the constant flow of new chemicals, the trade group said.

The American Trucking Associations voiced in its comments support for continued implementation on the Automated Commercial Environment and the International Trade Data System (here). CBP should also "install the In-Bond system within ACE so that motor carriers can create their own bond facilitating the ability of the carrier to also close out the bond," the group said. "Doing so will eliminate much confusion and other concerns about bonds not being closed properly and promptly by the responsible party."