Proposed Importer ID Form May Create Problems for Non-resident IORs, Northern Border Brokers Tell CBP

The additional requirements seem to go against the collaborative efforts in the Beyond the Border Initiative, said the NBCBA. "The unilateral increase in data collection without consultation with Canada will violate both the letter and spirit of the Beyond the Border Initiative," which calls for the use of common data between the two countries to improve trade processing, it said. Before "collecting further data, NBCBA believes that the United States would be required to consult with the government of Canada to harmonize all data elements. CBP requested public comments by Dec. 8 on the proposed revisions in October (see 14100815). Other groups, including the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, also voiced some concerns with the proposed form (see 1412090024).

CBP should do away with the proposal for NRIORs to provide a description of the address for the "deliver to/sold to" party, the trade group said. "The filer of the form 5106 has no knowledge as to whether this address is a residence, business, etc.," it said. That would keep the data requirements consistent with CBP's current policy and "within the framework of Beyond the Border obligations,"said the NBCBA. "In the context of the 24/7 environment of the Northern border and the broker having no direct relationship with the sold to/deliver to party, it may be impossible to obtain further data without interrupting the flow of goods."

There's also some concern with the potential allowance for non-licensed parties to be able to file customs information, the NBCBA said. The group was told that CBP is working on an "app" so that "commercial (non-licensed) parties could input" CBP data, it said. While the proposal doesn't actually mention such an ability, the NBCBA believes that "giving importers and consignees unfettered access to inputting CF5106 data may lead to a less secure environment" and would be inconsistent with CBP's "stated desire to have brokers vet information filed with the agency." As is, the broker and the sureties have exclusive access to all information and are in the position to input vetted information.

The agency would be better off scrapping the proposal, said the AAFA (here). The group urged CBP to formally withdraw the current proposal and instead "work with the importing community, through the [Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations] or other mechanisms, to craft a proposal that better meets the needs of both CBP and the importing community." Although not spelled out in the proposal, CBP officials subsequently told the AAFA "that the intent of the proposal is to obtain visibility into new importers in order to 'enhance CBP’s ability to make an informative assessment of risk.'" It's troubling that the proposal doesn't "differentiate in any way between trusted traders, long-time importers, or new importers" and would require all companies to file the new form, said the association. Also, "most of the pertinent information to make a risk assessment is already known to CBP" through the current 5106 and Form 301.

Among the concerns is the heightened level of intrusion involved in the data collection, the AAFA said. "CBP provides no justification for such a sweeping proposal when, as demonstrated by recent enforcement actions, it already appears to have access to necessary data for enforcement purposes through information on bonds and other means," it said. "Frankly, without any clearly stated rationale for the need for such data, the proposal, as currently written, represents a serious intrusion into the sensitive personal data of company employees without any benefit to CBP, and with certainly no benefit to the importing community."

Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of NBCBA's comments. ITT is interested in hearing views from others that have filed their comments with CBP. Send comments to ITTNews@warren-news.com.