10 + 2 Open Thread Experiment

This is an experiment in Wiki blogging.

Customs and Border Protection's Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the Importer Security Filing (so-called 10+2) is creating a big splash as people try and sort out exactly what will be required and what will happen in the case of non-compliance. Certainly, the requirements will create additional data to be collected and transmitted. Some of that may be burdensome. There are also concerns about the protection of business proprietary information.

I have some practical questions.
  • How is your company reacting?
  • How difficult do you expect compliance to be?
  • Can you quantify the difficulty in terms of time or expense?
  • What do you view as the most onerous part of the proposal?

Leave an anonymous comment here. Try and use this space for a discussion. Maybe acting as a group we can shed some useful light on the proposal.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This will be prove quite interesting, for what I believe are several reasons:

If this is enacted, which it sounds like it will be, this could allow CBP to enforce this immediately, or effective in the very short term. This in turn, could lead to disruptions in the supply chain that could have tremendous consequences, akin to work stoppage or strike at one of the larger ports of entry. Importers scramble to meet this new requirement leading to delays.

What is interesting is what is not spelled out so clearly - how is this data to be collected and analyzed? These points of data, most of which, in my opinion, are already supplied or collected in one fashion or another, are fairly straightforward. Doesn't import best practices suggest that all of this information would be readily available from the importer or shipper?

In terms of implementation, no real plan seems to have been laid out - will there be an interim? will there be testing? How detailed do the data points need to be? Will there be an XML stylesheet to be followed? Will data be collected manually?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, like most things CBP related, this seems to raise more issues and questions than answers or reasons. I think I'm frustrated a little because this sounds like a band-aid plan to fix something else that should have been fixed in the first place.
May 8, 2008, 1:37:00 PM
Anonymous said…
I work is msc shipping company
i would like why it is so called 10+2. i have read and re-read my documents and i have no idea about it. can you explain pls
Jan 23, 2009, 5:04:00 AM
Larry said…
Sure. There are 12 data elements to be subitted. 10 come from the importer and 2 from the carrier. Hence, 10 + 2. That name is likely going to fade as people get used to Importer Security Filing.

Evertything is on hold while the new administration reviews pending regulatory changes. So we are in a bit of limbo at the moment.
Jan 23, 2009, 8:38:00 AM
pharmacy said…
INteresting aspects, I wonder if at the end it really would come down to this.
Sep 14, 2011, 11:02:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more