COAC Draft Recommendations for Section 321 Entries Include Call for PGA Data Filing in ABI
CBP posted draft recommendations from the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) e-commerce working group on Section 321 entries ahead of the COAC meeting on Aug. 23 in San Diego. The recommendations "are intended to improve the import process from a facilitation and enforcement perspective for section 321-eligible shipments across all modes of transportation," the working group said. CBP issued an interim final rule on the de minimis level last year and raised a number of questions on the role of other agencies' requirements for such shipments (see 1608250029).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The group recommended that CBP and partner government agencies (PGAs) "adopt policies" that wouldn't "limit, encourage or require section 321 filing to a certain class or group of service providers," it said. The agency should also provide for 321 filing in ACE and said "that automated solutions, including the ability to file PGA data, should be available" in the Automated Broker Interface and Automated Manifest System. The recommendations still need approval from the full COAC and could be revised before the meeting.
Also mentioned is the need for clarity from CBP and the PGA on whether a merchandise description or a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number at the 10- or six-digit level is needed, the COAC group said. If an HTS number is required for the Section 321 entries, the agencies should say when the number "is recommended or required, e.g., in all cases, in cases of revenue or fees, or when required by PGA’s for admissibility determinations." CBP should also work with the PGAs to "to clarify publicly to the Trade whether section 321 imports require a data set as they do for entry types 01 or 11 for cargo release, or if a limited data set is sufficient."
There's also a need for improved descriptions of merchandise in commercial and shipping documents, the working group said. That would "facilitate a more comprehensive description on manifest data provided to filers of [Section] 321 transactions (e.g., matching customs declaration and Universal Product Codes/ UPCs or European Article Numbers/EAN to address potential [intellectual property rights] IPR issues)," it said. The agency should also consider giving benefits for trusted trader program participants, the group said. "In particular, CBP should consider expedited processing and less targeting due to minimal risk associated with such transactions when there is additional processing or screening performed."
As to who should be considered responsible for enforcement purposes, the draft recommendations don't include a definitive answer. CBP should clarify publicly to the trade existing laws and regulations such as those relating to risk-based cargo release, product admissibility, manifesting cargo, intellectual property, commercial negligence/fraud, etc. that provide CBP with the ability to hold various parties responsible for the accuracy of such transactions. The agency released several other COAC documents last week (see 1708160029).