Courtesy Notices Endangered?

I just noticed a Federal Register Notice in which U.S. Customs and Border Protection is proposing to eliminate the mailed paper courtesy notice of liquidation (CBPF 4333-A). The reasoning is that an electronic ABI message is already sent to the importer and the broker. According to Customs, that makes the courtesy notice redundant.

I'm just wondering . . . does it really? What do you folks do with the 4333? Personally, I see it a lot when importers want to confirm liquidation dates for purposes of filing protests. While I am aware that the only official notice is the notebook down at the customhouse, I also know that few importers trot down there to check before filing a protest.

I'm all about automation and reducing redundant data. I'm also happy to save the U.S. government $3 million per year, and save a few tress as well. Let me know if you see any problem with this.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry -

In this day and age the "book down at the customhouse" is an archaic redundancy. The official notice of liquidation should be the notice provided via ABI - not some clerk's scrawling in a 19th Century ledger.

If CBP were to make THIS change, there would be no need for the courtesy notice to be mailed.

Your faithful Customs retiree.
Mar 24, 2010, 1:49:00 PM
Karin said…
Years ago, a lot of importers tossed them or let them pile up in a drawer somewhere. We always reviewed for discrepancies and filed them with the entry documents. I agree - save time, money and trees!
Mar 25, 2010, 8:26:00 PM
Anonymous said…
I'm not sure that most importers even know what the liquidation notices are. I say: do away with the courtesy notices, but implement a direct notice to the importer rather than to the broker via ABI.
Mar 26, 2010, 11:06:00 PM
Leroy F. Berven said…
For the vast majority of entries which liquidate "as entered", both liquidation notices and the liquidation list posted at the local Customs office are no longer a good use of CBP resources; electronic notification would make much more sense. Paper change notices, however, like notices of suspension of liquidation, continue to serve a very useful reminder function -- particularly for importers who are not yet electronically linked to CBP. So, I would continue the mailed notices of any action (or non-action) which indicates any outcome other than the routine liquidation to close out an entry with no further changes.
Mar 30, 2010, 2:17:00 AM
Peter S Herrick PA said…
The Bulletin Notices of Entries Liquidated should be posted electronically. This would save the government time and money. Pages from the Bulletin are not available through FOIA.
May 28, 2010, 2:53:00 PM
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