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

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