New US NAFTA CO Form

[Updated for clarity improvements.]

Customs has updated the NAFTA CO Form 434, now with the date "11/14." The new form has some nice automated features to select dates. It is not immediately obvious, but when you click the field, you will see a drop down for a calendar. This should eliminate ambiguity as to dating formats (although I note that the printed date will be in U.S. mm/dd/yyyy format).

The other innovation is that the contact information for the Exporter, Producer, Importer and signatory all have a space for an email address. This certainly seems like reasonable information for CBP to request. But, it raises the question of whether an importer can rely on a NAFTA CO that does not include an email address and whether CBP will accept it in the event of a verification.

Yesterday, CBP issued a notice addressing that question. Below is the full text of what Customs and Border Protection had to say. Note the highlighted middle paragraph stating that forms without the email address remain valid.

CSMS #15-000108

Title: NAFTA Certificate of Origin Enhancements and Use of Expired Certifications

Date: 2/18/2015 4:53:19 PM

To: Automated Broker Interface, ACE Portal Accounts

An amended CBP Form 434, NAFTA Certificate of Origin, now available on the CBP "Forms" page
at http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%20434_3.pdf, provides blocks for importer / exporter / producer and signee email addresses, as well as drop-down calendars indicating "mm/dd/yy" for the input of the blanket period and signature date. These enhancements to the CBP Form 434 were made to facilitate communication and eliminate date ambiguity.

CBP will continue to accept prior versions of the CBP 434, as well as the Canadian B232 and the Mexican Certificado de Origen without the email address blocks. While a form with email blocks may assist communication, for CBP purposes, a form or format without email addresses remains valid.

CBP forms obtained from the "Forms" menu of www.cbp.gov are the most up-to-date available. CBP will continue to accept certificates of origin associated with the NAFTA (CBP Form 434), the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBP Form 450) and the Insular Possessions (CBP Form 3229) irrespective of any expiration date.


If you have questions, please contact the Trade Agreements Branch at FTA@dhs.gov.

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