Customs and Border Protection Updates ISA

Customs and Border Protection has posted an updated Importer Self Assessment Memorandum of Understanding. You can read that document here.

I don;t want to sound like a curmudgeon; I am at least two years away from that status. But, I have long had questions about the value of ISA participation. Looking at this MOU, the ISA member agrees to a number of things including:
  • Agreeing to comply with applicable CBP laws and regulations
  • Perform annual risk assessments
  • Make appropriate disclosures
  • Maintain results of testing for three years and make test information available to CBP upon request
  • Maintain an audit trail from financial records to CBP declarations, or an alternate system that ensures accurate values are reported to CBP
So, the ISA member has to perform annual testing and maintain the records for review by CBP. 

An importer that is not in ISA but behaves as if it were would undertake annual (or more often) risk assessments. Those reports, however, if done at the direction of counsel, would be privileged against disclosure to Customs. Further, the company could decide what to disclose to Customs. A company that is careful and interested in compliance would make disclosures to protect itself from penalties and to ensure that it has paid the appropriate amount of duties to the U.S. Further, a careful and compliant company is going to maintain records in accordance with the law.

It seems to me that ISA members have agreed to give up the flexibility that goes with internal controls. The main benefit for this undertaking is to be removed from the random audit pool. That is true and a valuable benefit. But, importers should keep in mind that ISA membership does not remove them the responsibility of responding to a so-called Quick Response Audit. Nor does it mean that Customs and Border could not launch a full-blown audit if it sees a reason to do so. And, the MOU specifically states that ISA members are not immune from penalty liability (although membership may be taken into consideration in setting penalty amounts).

So, I have a question for ISA members out there: Is it worth it? If so, how?

Comments

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