 In The Press |
|
|
|
|
|
| ISF Brochure by CBP |
|
ISF Brochure by CBP CBP online brochure provides an overview of the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier Requirements program, which became effective on January 26, 2009. For further details, please access the online brochure at: |
|
|
|
| Mitigation Guidelines for ISF - July 23, 2009 |
|
The July 17, 2009 U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) publication of the CBP Bulletin contained the mitigation guidelines for the Importer Security Filing (ISF/"10+2") program.
Pages 36-40 of the publication cover the Importer penalties for ISF Violations. The 2 specific violations that the mitigation guideline covers are:
1.) Failure to submit an ISF when one is required, to submit a late ISF, or to submit an inaccurate ISF.
2.) Submitting an inaccurate update.
Under Section G CBP indicated "liquidated damages cannot be assessed for the failure to file an ISF if no bond is in place."
Below are key points for the Assessment of Liquidated Damages Claims for ISF Violations:
- Late Filing: $5000 per late ISF.
- Inaccurate Filing: $5000 per inaccurate ISF. "CBP will consider the transmission closest in time to, but prior to, 24 hours prior to lading, prior to lading, or 24 hours prior to arrival, whichever is applicable."
- Inaccurate ISF Updates: $5000 for the first inaccurate ISF update.
- Failure to Withdrawal: $5000 per ISF.
Penalties may also be assessed for serious and repetitive violations.
Below are key points for Mitigating Factors:
- Evidence of progress in the implementation of the ISF requirement during the flexible enforcement period.
- Small number of violations compared to the number of shipments requiring ISF declarations.
- Importers that are Tier 2 or Tier 3 C-TPAT members may receive consideration of up to 50% of the normal mitigation amount.
- Demonstrated a corrective action is in place to prevent future violations.
- Late filing was due to factors outside of the control of the Importer, i.e. vessel diversions due to weather.
- If inaccurate filing information was received "from another party in accordance with ordinary commercial practices." The importer must have reasonably believed the information to be true and correct.
Below are key points for Aggravating factors:
- Lack of cooperation with CBP.
- Smuggling or attempt to introduce or introduction of merchandise contrary to law.
- Multiple errors on the ISF.
- Rising error rate, which is indicative of deteriorating performance.
The full version of H.R. 2355 can be found at the following link:
|
|
|
|
| Proposed HMF Increase |
|
A new House Bill (H.R. 2355) known as the “Movement Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives last month. The proposed act would increase the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) from 0.125% to 0.4375% and impose a 0.3125% value tax on commercial cargo entering the U.S. from foreign ports. Goods originating from Canada and Mexico will not be affected by the tax.
The proposed bill was intended to be an attractive option to increase tax revenues. Lobbying efforts are already underway to stop the bill.
The full version of H.R. 2355 can be found at the following link:
|
|
|
|
| Prior Notice Final Rule - New info. Published by FDA |
|
Prior Notice (PN) final rule will have an effective date of May 6, 2009. This will include information on several aspects of PN, including (but not limited to): - Foods included/excluded from PN requirements - When and how to submit PN - Corrections of PN information - How to get help with PN Presentation covers topics including (but not limited to): - Overview of the PN final rule - Various PN definitions - PN requirements - Consequences of non-compliance In addition, the presentation covers many of the same subjects that appear on the fact sheet. The November 2008 final rule makes a few key amendments the existing Prior Notice Interim Final Rule which has been in effect since December of 2003. The PN fact sheet can be accessed online at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fsbtac29.html The PN slide presentation can be accessed online at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fsbtac28.html The PN final rule can be accessed online at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-26282.pdf The PN draft compliance policy guide can be accessed online at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~pn/cpgpn7.html |
|
|
|
| 10+2 ISF Updates |
|
Customs has added more flexibility to Manufacturer/Supplier, Ship to Party and Container Stuffing Location fields. Please see below and check out our website (www.unipacshipping.com) for updated slides in both Chinese (traditional and simplified) and English versions. Manufacturer (Supplier) name/address – CBP now accepts the supplier of finished goods rather than the actual manufacturer in the ISF transmission. Ship To Party – CBP now accepts distribution centers, terminal firm codes, and truckers yards. Container Stuffing Location – CBP now accepts” scheduled” stuffing location. Please also visit below website for latest 10+2 FAQs. |
|
|
|
| CPSC Spells Out Enforcement Policy For New Lead Limits In Children's Products Effective February 10 |
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Starting on February 10, 2009, consumer products intended for children 12 and under cannot have more than 600 parts per million of lead in any accessible part. This new safety requirement is a key component of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) aimed at further reducing children's exposure to lead. Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers should also be aware that CPSC will: *Not impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing, or selling **a children's product to the extent that it is made of certain natural materials, such as wood, cotton, wool, or certain metals and alloys which the Commission has recognized rarely, if ever, contain lead; **an ordinary children's book printed after 1985; or **dyed or undyed textiles (not including leather, vinyl or PVC) and non-metallic thread and trim used in children's apparel and other fabric products, such as baby blankets. (The Commission generally will not prosecute someone for making, selling or distributing items in these categories even if it turns out that such an item actually contains more than 600 ppm lead.) Sellers will not be immune from prosecution if CPSC's Office of Compliance finds that someone had actual knowledge that one of these children's products contained more than 600 ppm lead or continued to make, import, distribute or sell such a product after being put on notice. Agency staff will seek recalls of violative children's products or other corrective actions, where appropriate. *Issue an interim final rule effective February 10, 2009, which establishes alternative lead limits for certain electronic devices, in order to prevent unnecessary removal of certain children's products from store shelves. *Accept a manufacturer's determination that a lead-containing part on their product is inaccessible to a child and not subject to the new lead limits, if it is consistent with the Commission's proposed guidance or is based on a reasonable reading of the inaccessibility requirement. Paint and other coatings or electroplating are not considered barriers that make a component inaccessible. This enforcement policy will remain in effect until superseded by action of the Commission. CPSC still expects companies to meet their reporting obligation under federal law and immediately tell the Commission if they learn of a children's product that exceeds the new lead limits starting on February 10, 2009. Companies also should know that the CPSIA generally prohibits the export for sale of children's products that exceed the new lead limits. As announced on January 30, 2009, the Commission approved a one year stay of enforcement for certain testing and certification requirements for manufacturers and importers. Significant to makers of children's products, the 'stay' provides limited relief from the testing and certification for total lead content limits, phthalates limits for certain products and mandatory toy standards. Manufacturers and importers - large and small - of children's products will not need to test or certify to these new requirements, but will still need to meet the lead and phthalates limits, mandatory toy standards and other requirements. Certification based on testing by an accredited laboratory is still required for painted children's products and soon will be required for children's metal jewelry, as well as certain other products for non-lead issues. |
|
|
|
| The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE |
|
The importer security filing, or 10+2, interim final rule has taken effect Monday as planned, Department of Homeland Security officials confirmed. |
|
|
|
| FMC request will delay ports' clean-trucks fee to 2009 |
|
|
Excerpts taken from The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE Bill Mongelluzzo / The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE LONG BEACH, Calif. -- The Federal Maritime Commission on Wednesday asked the ports of This is the latest skirmish in what has become a battle between the nation's two largest container ports and the federal agency that regulates the maritime industry. The fees are a cornerstone of the ports' clean-trucks program, which is designed to reduce truck pollution by 80 percent over the next five years. The ports intend to charge a $35 per-TEU fee on most truck traffic and will use the revenues to subsidize the purchase by motor carriers of new trucks meeting the ports' strict emission standards. New clean-running diesel trucks cost about $100,000 each and many trucking companies and owner-operators cannot afford such costs because of the thin margins on which they operate. The FMC has questioned certain provisions in the clean-trucks programs, especially a requirement by the The ports, which are implementing portions of their clean-truck programs under anti-trust immunity granted by the FMC, filed a Port Fee Services Agreement with the commission. The FMC earlier this fall requested additional information on the fee collection, indicating that certain provisions could be discriminatory and could reduce truck competition in the harbor. Under the Shipping Act of 1984, the FMC must take action within 45 days of receiving the information it requested. During that period, the ports are prohibited from implementing the policy in question. In this case, the ports had intended to begin collecting the clean-truck fee in October, but put the collection on hold during the 45-day waiting period that was set to end on Dec. 18. By asking for more information, the FMC is delaying the fee collection into next year. "The commission's request for additional information delays the effectiveness of the Port Fee Services Agreement until 45 days after the parties have submitted the requested information and documents," the FMC stated in a release posted on its Web site. "Accordingly, as the Port Fee Services Agreement is not yet effective, the Shipping Act prohibits the parties from implementing any program pursuant to the authorities contained in the agreement," the commission stated. The ports did not have an immediate response to the FMC action, although it is apparent that the delays are proving to be costly. The ports are foregoing hundreds of thousands of dollars each day the fee collection is delayed. |
|
|
|
| Clean Truck Program |
|
The Port of Long Beach has issued a press release stating it will launch a major phase in its Clean Trucks Program (CTP), shifting to an electronic gate reader system on November 10, 2008 and beginning the assessment of a Clean Trucks Fee on container cargo on November 17, 2008 to fund the replacement of polluting trucks with a fleet of new clean trucks.
PortCheck, a nonprofit organization of port terminal operators, will collect the fee on the ports' behalf from beneficial cargo owners. The fee and the PortCheck system for collecting will be phased in over the following two weeks.
Nov 3 - Cargo Owners Can Visit PortCheck Webpage
On Monday, November 3, 2008, PortCheck will allow cargo owners to familiarize themselves with its system for claiming cargo by visiting the PortCheck page at www.pierpass-tmf.org. Cargo owners that are already registered in PierPASS will automatically be uploaded in to PortCheck. Cargo owners that are automatically uploaded from PierPASS in to PortCheck will first have to accept the terms and conditions of PortCheck before their account will get extended in to PortCheck.
Nov 10 – Electronic Gate Reader Goes Live, RFID Required, Stickers No Longer Valid
On Monday, November 10, 2008, the electronic gate reader system for PortCheck will go live. Container terminal operators will turn away concession trucks without Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The only trucks allowed to access terminals will be trucks working for Licensed Motor Carriers with port-approved concessions that are registered in the port's online Drayage Truck Registry, have paid their $100 per truck registration fee, and that have RFID tags.
On November 10, 2008, the bright orange Temporary Access Permit stickers will no longer be valid.
(Beginning immediately, trucking companies can complete their vehicle registrations by paying their $100 truck fees in the Drayage Truck Registry (http://dtr.cleanairactionplan.org).)
Nov 13 – Cargo Owners May Begin Paying $35 or $70 Clean Trucks Fee
On Thursday, November 13, 2008, cargo owners may begin paying the fee - $35 for 20-foot and shorter containers and $70 for longer containers.
Nov 17 – Only PortCheck Cargo Allowed In and Out of Terminals
On Monday, November 17, 2008, at 7 a.m., only container cargo cleared through PortCheck will be allowed to move in and out of the Port’s container terminals. |
|
|
|
| Lacey Act Amendment: Implementation Questions and Answers |
|
| The Lacey Act amendments included in the 2008 Farm Bill are effective as of May 22, 2008. As a practical matter, this means that enforcement actions may be taken for any violations committed on or after that date. Note, however, that the requirement to provide a declaration under 16 U.S.C. 3372(f) does not become effective until December 15, 2008 (180 days from the date of enactment). Moreover, enforcement of the declaration requirement will be phased-in and is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2009. Please view the attached file for completed Q&A. |
|
| Lacey Act QA |
Page
1 of 6
Next>>
|
|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
||
|