Proposed Changes to In-Bond Process

I'm just going to throw this out there for my broker and importer friends. Yesterday, Customs and Border Protection published a proposed rule to modify the in-bond process.  Here is a link to the notice.

Here is the summary in full:


Under the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, imported merchandise may be transported in-bond. This process allows imported merchandise to be entered at one U.S. port of entry without appraisement or payment of duties and transported by a bonded carrier to another U.S. port of entry provided all statutory and regulatory conditions are met. At the destination port, the merchandise is officially entered into the commerce of the United States and duties paid, or, the merchandise is exported. CBP is proposing various changes to the in-bond regulations to enhance CBP's ability to regulate and track in-bond merchandise and to ensure that the in-bond merchandise is properly entered and duties are paid or that the in-bond merchandise is exported. Among other things, the proposed changes would: eliminate the paper in-bond application (CBP Form 7512) and require carriers or their agents to electronically file the in-bond application; require additional information on the in-bond application including the six-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule number, if available, and information relevant to the safety and security of the in-bond merchandise; establish a 30-day maximum time to transport in-bond merchandise between United States ports, for all modes of transportation except pipeline; require carriers to electronically request permission from CBP before diverting the in-bond merchandise from its intended destination port to another port; and require carriers to report the arrival and location of the in-bond merchandise within 24 hours of arrival at the port of destination or port of export. CBP also proposes various other changes, including the restructuring of the in-bond regulations, so that they are more logical and better track the in-bond process. At this time, CBP is not proposing to change the in-bond procedures found in the air commerce regulations, except to change certain times periods to conform to the proposed changes in this document.

Comments are due April 23, 2012.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more