Q:	I understand the informed compliance aspect of your position but what concerns me is if you remove the origin edit for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entries, who in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be looking at all the NAFTA entries that are filed to make sure they have been done correctly? Who will be doing what the computer is doing today?
A:	Who in CBP today verifies that? You are making the assumption that in today’s environment CBP verifies all of those line items. We are saying that we should be doing that on an account basis and not on an individual line item basis.

Q:	Aren’t you opening up a window for these to get by you?
A:	I don’t think so. If we make sure that the trade community knows what they are doing, then we are going in the right direction.

Q:

If you are not going to give me an error message that something really does not qualify for the NAFTA, are you going to have the ability for your Import Specialists to prepare a report that aggregates all of those entries where NAFTA was claimed but did not qualify?

A:

Yes, we will have an internal report for that. Trade Comment: If you don’t have that edit built in, someone will have to look for something they are not looking for today. That may impact the time you are currently dedicating to do other things like sending CF28s. Trade Comment: As a post review practice, we verify the information ourselves even after ACS has already accepted the data. My real reason is that I don’t trust everyone. We do find things. I am concerned that without these edits, we will now find many more errors. It is easier to correct on the front end than file a post entry amendment. Getting the information correct is more than just verifying that the country of origin is either Canada or Mexico. Trade Comment: We discussed this during the Trade Support Network (TSN) Leadership Council (TLC) meeting. We were shocked that this recommendation came forth when we first heard it. We were waiting to see where you were going with this…. It is the consensus of both the trade ambassadors and the trade that you are not going in the right direction. What do we tell our clients who are used to us doing things correctly and not getting penalties? Lou Samenfink: I think the trade is going in the wrong path. If you think we should be checking all of those things up front why haven’t you been pushing for more edits all along? Part of this process has to do with having this open dialogue. I understand you don’t like this but I don’t accept your opinion that we have not gone to our senior management with the input you have provided to us. Trade Comment: We are hearing everything you are saying but we in the trade agree this is the wrong path to take. This is because some of the examples we speak to are not the best examples for this discussion. The trade invested time and money because of the promise that the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) was going to be something more than what we were getting today in the Automated Commercial System (ACS). What you are delivering to us is something less than what we are getting today. For CBP to do this, it represents a single cost; for the trade to do this it will represent a huge cost many times over. Another important point for your consideration is that CBP, in solving the problem of edits, will come up with a single solution. All the software providers/brokers however, will each come up with different solutions and therefore you will lose uniformity. CBP told the trade that it needed to get some functionality out because time was being lost, the real issue however is that we should move away from some of the things we are discussing and talk to whether this is the right decision for ACE. Lou Samenfink: If CBP makes a change; everyone needs to change. Whether CBP is editing or not editing the information does not relieve the trade from making changes. We are going to roll this out with a couple of filers and it will probably be a couple of years before we have all entry types and full functionality in ACE. You have plenty of time to do this. Lou Samenfink: With regard to A2.2, we are going to have a couple of ports with volunteer participants. It will probably take one to two years before we have all entry types in ACE. Trade Comment: We have checks and balances in place today that we will be losing. Rick McManus: The principal goal of the Mod Act was to streamline the entry procedure by relying on the information submitted by the importers. The idea that we need to check the information submitted at entry runs counter to the Mod Act. Additionally, if all efforts are exhausted at the time of the submission of the entry, you will have the ability for post summary corrections, that is, to correct any mistakes prior to liquidation.

Q:	Who is held accountable in the event of an error on a duty calculation entry?
A:	The importer will be held responsible.

Q:	Will CBP provide importers with the information they need in order to do those calculations properly? Will you have something on the portal that will allow us to do those calculations?
A:	We can provide that to you or provide you a link to where you can access that information.

Q:

How will the decisions you make in terms of data edits impact the Participating Government Agencies (PGAs)?

A:

We are currently in discussions with the PGAs to determine the impact. If the edit is needed for purposes of admissibility, we will keep the edit. Trade Comment: We, that is, the TLC/Trade Ambassadors are not happy with this decision, and we know we have been combative on this point. However, if we can’t win this fight on the edits, CBP owes us a robust document like the old 7501 Directive so that we can do things correctly. Trade Comment: Part of the problem is that there is no one comprehensive place for us to access the information we need. Most times, the edits are the only way we know if we are sending in the information correctly. Absent that, there is nothing to guide us. Despite the fact that you have issued laws/regulations, there is nothing to explain to us how to do things. Much is open to interpretation. Steve Hilsen: CBP agrees that updated guidance is needed. HTS and currency changes need to be timely. When CBP looks at your internal controls and an un-intentional error occurs you need to have some level of comfort that we will not just be penalizing you. That is why we are working on an Importer Self Assessment (ISA) program for brokers for the future. Trade Comment: I am amazed that we are taking a post entry audit approach to this. Our emphasis will shift from other important and relevant analyses like classification, to trying to manage minutia. There will be a lot of costs for the trade to absorb on the post entry side. If you are looking at this as a partnership, I ask that CBP examine its role in all of this. Steve Hilsen: CBP does not see this impact on our resources to “manage minutia” as you do. We see this as part of the existing workload and not as new workload.

Q:

You have stated that the vast majority (99.7%) of entries don’t reject. Do you have a list of the top 10 entry types that do reject or that hit up against your edits?

A:

We are looking at revenue edits and cargo/admissibility edits. Trade Comment: I think CBP is missing the point. What frustrates me is when I hear CBP referencing “post entry review” or “post entry edits.” What the trade is saying is that you have stuff in place that computers can do. There are two types of data analysis- those that a computer can do and those that require human analysis. What we are saying is that you currently have data that computers can review. You are saying that you are not going to let the computers do that type of analysis anymore but you are going to make your import specialist do this. A: That is not really what CBP is saying.

Q:	What happens when I send you the information and it is wrong? Someone is going to have to look at that entry. Won’t this happen for every edit you take away?
A:	It could happen. Someone could be looking at that entry summary to catch the error. CBP wants to focus on an account based process as opposed to you owe me $1,200.

Q:

ACE is an automated system with certain efficiencies that we are overlooking by forcing a Mod Act analysis on this. To remove some of these edits, as for example the Chapter 99 tariff rates and the associated data ranges, is a big mistake. How do we get the biggest bang for our buck out of ACE? What is ACE capable of doing that is not based on a post entry approach and that will facilitate CBPs mission while simultaneously making the trade’s job easier?

Q:	You stated that most entries are not rejecting but what you are NOT saying is how we got to that point. Are you going to certify software providers under ACE and what edits will you be using to do that? How will the trade know which software vendors are reliable?
A:	Everyone should know the rules/regulations for purposes of compliance.

Q:	You stated that Census edits will be the same; are you going to correct the things that are not correct with the Census edits today?
A:	Please follow up with me with regard to the Census edits that you believe to be incorrect. We will have to get back to you on that.

Q:	Edits provide the trade with pure computation benefits such as the Unit of Measure (UOM) edit. Some of those edits aren’t there and they should be. If you get an automatic mismatch, you fix it and it’s done.
A:	The spreadsheets reflecting the A2.2 edit validations in scope for A2.2 have been revised to reflect that UOM edit (as required by HTS) will be in scope for A2.2.

Q:	If I submit an entry summary with three errors, will the first reject be sent back, or all three?
A:	Error messages will go back for all three errors. The entire entry will be checked against those edits remaining for A2.2.

Q:	Is the list of edits comprehensive?
A:	The list of validations reflecting the error codes may not be 100% comprehensive. We are working with a member of the trade who is generating errors in ACS to make sure we are providing for all errors.

Q:	The commonality between the two lists are the error messages and error codes. Are there edits currently in place that don’t result in error codes? I believe there are times when an entry has been rejected for some reason without returning an error code.
A:	This has been part of the exercise, in a general sense.

Q:

Will the entry summary go through the step by step validation process?

A:

Yes, it will go through the whole validation process. Trade Comment: The TLC and the Trade Ambassadors have asked for additional information/data that is currently not readily available elsewhere. For example, information that is sent to us via administrative messages, pipelines, etc. We really need to go through these validations one by one to determine which of these would benefit from additional information. Trade Comment: As part of compensating controls, there is no easy way to find all of the information needed. We don’t have that data available to us. CBP needs to make the entire lists of edits available. Currently they are found piecemeal in various directives. For example, which tariffs require formal entry? The trade has asked for this to be returned in a query, but it’s not currently available. There are a number of edits in this category where making better data available to trade will be helpful. The trade needs to go through the validations one by one to identify information needed such that their systems can handle this change. The trade has issues with resending the entry summary enough times until it matches. Trial and error is the result of lack of information. A: Good point. We have to determine what needs to be provided for trade to exercise their obligation.

Q:	I know you are saying that you agree that you need to provide that to us, but when? For A2.2?
A:	Post Meeting Addendum: The TSN Entry Committee has formed a working group to determine the content of this documentation. Cynthia Whittenburg, Office of International Trade, is the CBP lead for this effort.

Q:	Will the HSA reference table be available on the portal?
A:	That has not been a consideration at this time; we were focusing on dropping that table via EDI. Comment from Valarie Neuhart: For purposes of A2.2, the HSA file will be the same as what currently resides in ACS.

Q:	I believe you stated that A2.2 only applies to type 01 and 11 entries, but you have some validations on your spreadsheets that are applicable to type 3 entries. Do we assume that they are out of scope?
A:	As we deliver the other entry types and focus areas of functionality, those edits will be respective to those drops.

Q:	If we see discrepancies between your two lists, how do we make that information available to you? For example, what will you do with Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF)? Is it available as a header and line item validation or is it one and not the other?
A:	Please contact Chuck Woods with regard to any discrepancies, but in general, HMF is out of scope for A2.2.

Q:	Where do we direct our input on these?
A:	Please reach out to the Transition and Entry Committee CoChairs, Celeste Catano and Art Litman, respectively. They will coordinate the trade response.

Q:	With regard to your comment on the 97.3% of entries that will not reject, when you remove these edits, what is the automation you will use on the back end to get that validation?
A:	We will not be validating that on the back end at a later time.

Q:	When the edits are gone, what’s the automation that you’re going to use to check to be sure that everything is OK on the CBP side? If you don’t edit up front, then you’ll have to make the determination on the back end.
A:	We’re not going to validate every duty calculation that the trade gives us. We don’t validate classification now. Everything will NOT be checked. What we will check will be part of our compensating controls. We have compensating controls today within ACS, e.g., sampling. We also do compensating controls on front the end, as for example, compliance exams.

Q:	Why is CBP doing away with the calculation for fees?
A:	ACS is broken today. There is a lawsuit today on HMF because of the problems with ACS.

Q:	If I decide to stop paying the minimum MPF, how will CBP know?
A:	You can lie and we won’t catch you. You can do that today. Trade Comment: But today, you do catch me because of the edits. A: This gets back to how we approach our trade issues.

Q:	If you are doing away with calculation fees such as HMF and the Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF), how will you know if I stop paying these fees on a bunch of entries?
A:	Lou Samenfink: We wouldn’t know. If it is a software glitch and the concern is that something is not happening because it is not intentional/fraudulent or part of criminal activity, then how would we address that? It does not make sense for you to ask me to compute all of these edits when you already do that as part of your internal processes.

Q:

We could have made a mistake even after we do our internal audits, that’s why we need to have the data validated against the CBP system.

A:

Prior to the Mod Act CBP supplied the trade with the duty rate. Post Mod Act, that is no longer the model. You ask why we are changing this model; my understanding is that the legislation says CBP is not supposed to be doing that. Rick McManus: Prior to the Mod Act, importers were supposed to supply CBP with enough information to enable CBP to assess duties, make classification, etc. After the Mod Act, the legislation indicated that importers were to use reasonable care so that they could accurately make those assessments themselves. Trade Comment: We can’t stress enough how critical it is for you to give us the information we need in the way of an informed compliance document so that we can meet our reasonable care responsibilities. When we are up against an audit, they don’t care about “reasonable care”; they care about us doing things right. If you don’t give us this document soon, like now, this will result in importers and brokers pitted against one another. If you are going to change the way you are interpreting the Mod Act today, then you also must provide us with information we need in order to comply. Trade Comment: One of the big issues we have is the calculation of fees. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) does not tell us how to calculate. This information is provided in the original legislation, court cases, and administrative messages. We need to be mindful of those situations because there would be no way that I would expect an import specialist to be able to follow that paper trail. Trade Comment (Lee Sandler): The Mod Act did not alleviate CBP of the responsibility to liquidate the entry. The Mod Act does not state you have to wait 4 years to do that. This is a policy issue not a legal issue. There is nothing in the law that prevents you from doing what you are currently doing- that is, doing these edits up front. The legislative history speaks to the problem of where there are duplicate computer generated errors and how to treat that. I don’t think that it is accurate to say that the legislation does not tell you to do those edits up front. Rick McManus: The Mod Act does not require us to keep the ACS edits. The Mod Act, through the concept of “reasonable care,” shifted the burden of accurate entry declaration information from CBP to the importer. The law enabled CBP to streamline that process up front. The Mod Act was modeled after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) model, where those audits are not done up front. Trade Comment (Lee Sandler): Rick recited the Mod Act correctly, but he did not address my point that CBP is still responsible for liquidating the entry. In line with that responsibility, CBP can liquidate as early as it wants. This is still a CBP policy judgment. CBP determines when to make a correction. Does obligation only run on the date of obligation? If there is no obligation at the time of entry, there would be no increase in liquidations. Rick McManus: CBPs responsibility is to make information as transparent as possible; an edit is not informing the trade on how to make entry correctly. And to Lee’s point, it is CBPs responsibility to liquidate and we can do so without having to bump against edits each and every time. With regard to HMF, this legislation was enacted in 1986. This is an ad-valorem fee; information related to calculating HMF is readily available to the public. Lastly, I would also argue that the IRS tax code is not too complicated for you to be able to file your taxes yourself. This was the model for CBP under the Mod Act. An argument that filing an entry is too complicated doesn’t hold water. Lou Samenfink: If we were to agree that the policy should be for the computer to continue those edits, then we would edit much more than we do today, and I don’t think you want us to go in that direction. Trade Comment (Jeff Laxague): I would also like to add some clarification on a particular issue with which I have past experience and knowledge. I too was around during the time when the Mod Act was passed and in my former CBP capacity, I helped to prepare the congressional reports when we briefed Congress on the Mod Act. When we were asked by Congress if CBP was giving up some of its authority in allowing the importer to submit that information, we indicated that we had sophisticated ACS edits in place that would take care of those entries. As such, what Rick is saying contradicts the legislative history of the Mod Act. A: If you are right, then I am still at fault because today, ACS does NOT provide full edits.

Q:

Why can’t edits be considered part of informed compliance?

A:

Nothing prevents CBP from having edits, but informed compliance is supposed to be information given by CBP prior to filing entry. Trade Comment: CBP is obligated to make information available upfront. I don’t see the harm, in the post summary corrections environment, in having Census override type edits where messages could be sent back to the filer indicating that something looks as if it is beyond the parameters of what should be right. A: If that is the case, we should be going edit heavy. Edit the heck out of everything and make it as robust as possible. Be careful what you ask for.

Q:

If it is CBP's responsibility to fix duty on entry, and if we get rid of the edits, when does CBP exercise their responsibility to fix the final duty amount?

A:

Again, if we’re supposed to do this, then we need to do more upfront. Trade Comment: If you are moving to a policy of “doing nothing” after having in place a policy of “doing something” you are no longer upholding the responsibility of CBP. A: We believe we have better ways of getting to information that the computer could never validate. Trade Comment: I take issue with your statement that if CBP is going to do edits you would have to do a lot more of those edits. Why do you need to take that extreme position? Many of these edits have historic value. Where did you get the idea that we have to go overboard and build all edits? There are just certain ones that are critical. Why can’t you continue to do the edits that you are currently doing and then remove edits or add edits where there is a logical need?

Q:	(Tim Skud): Do you have the list of edits that you want to keep?
A:	Lou: Yes. We know that there are more edits that the trade would like us to continue; we are going to continue to work with the trade on those and get that input back to the policy people.

Post Meeting Addendum: Subsequent to the TSN, CBP decided to include the 24 high priority tariff level edits identified by the trade. Although these edits will not be in place by the January 2009 ACE release, they will be delivered before the ACE entry summary filing is mandatory.

February 6, 2008

ACE Status Update
Louis Samenfink and Michael Maricich

Q:	What is your down time?
A:	Our target is 99.95% availability.

Q:	Looking at the schedule, you have said that the entry summary doesn’t have to go into ACE until all the functionality is complete. Are you referring to functionality for A2.3 or A2.4?
A:	A2.3.

Q:	The cargo release piece falls shortly after that, so will you be doing a big bang approach?
A:	Yes, we are hoping to roll it out all at once.

Entry Summary Accounts & Revenue (ESAR) A2 Overview
Valerie Neuhart and Michael Maricich

Q:	Will you be adding fixes to the Portal so that we can add Free and Secure Trade (FAST) drivers in ACE?
A:	No, we cannot add FAST drivers to the Portal. However, if you put in the ACE ID you will be able to pull up the FAST drivers.

Q:	Once the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) data goes in, will you be adding that functionality?
A:	No. The messaging capability (Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS)) we are referring to is directed at notification communications to the trade on important issues; this won’t affect what goes to central query.

Q:	Will CSMS also be available to PGAs?
A:	Yes.

Q:	What about the ability for DOT to send messages to carriers?
A:	That is not the messaging system we are talking about. Your concern about being able to communicate on an operational basis with carriers is part of the April drop.

Q:

Currently, when we add an employee to our portal account we have to add the social security number. Once that is saved, any employer that is a user in the system will be able to view that social security number. Can we limit that visibility?

A:

At one time everyone could see it. We have fixed that problem by limiting that view to the Trade Account Owner (TAO) and Proxy Trade Account Owner (PTAO); users will not be able to see social security numbers. Additionally, if you give your users “read only access” to the tab, this will also limit their visibility to that type of information. Trade Comment: The TSN Accounts Committee has also submitted a Great Idea Form (GIF) recommending a new user role that would only have access to that type of information.

Q:	Any thought about putting pipelines through CSMS?
A:	We will take that back as a recommendation.

Q:	You stated that “other issues” are still being addressed in portal. Can you clarify what you mean by those “other issues?”
A:	One issue for example, is cargo exam reports. Additionally, in the conversion to the new report tool we lost data elements that were available under the old report tool; two of those data elements will be picked up with the Authorized Data Extract (ADE). We will put this type of information out via the CSMS.

Q:

In the TSN Revenue Committee we mapped out the deployment of GIFs; most of these fall into A2.4- that is a long time to wait. From a revenue generation perspective, this is also a long time for CBP to have to wait for this functionality. Should we in the TSN Revenue Committee just sit back and wait 5 years- isn’t there anything we can do? This is very frustrating for the trade considering that we also have some World Customs Organization (WCO) requirements that are coming up and new bond obligations with 10+2.

A:

CBP asked for a 10% increase in Fiscal Year (FY) 10. If we get it, we wouldn’t see that money until late 2009. All of you are in business- you know how this goes. We have limited funds and we can only do so much. We will get it done, but it can’t be on a time schedule that is more aggressive than what we are giving you.

Q:	Can we get some clarification on where bonds are to be submitted? Is it to the National Finance Center or to the local ports?
A:	All activity code 1 bonds can come directly to the National Finance Center; type 1A through 5 bonds must be submitted to the ports. After the ports process them, they will forward the bonds to the National Finance Center. Trade Comment: We have a situation where we were told to send type 4 bonds directly to the National Finance Center. A: We will have to follow up directly with the ports.

Q:	Are you going to get all Port Activity Tracking System (PATS) information into ACE and eventually tie it into ACE as a module?
A:	Yes. At the very least, we are going to try to convert all the fields that can be converted into ACE.

Q:	How much of the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) administrative messages will go to CSMS?
A:	We reviewed all of the existing ABI admin messages. All the messages that were deemed relevant were converted and moved over to the new CSMS.

Q:	We understand that you have challenges in speaking to 10+2 but we in the trade have concerns about when you will be enforcing 10+2 and the impact to this ACE schedule. Is your team getting ready for this?
A:	Whatever the final rule will be for 10+2, we will have to modify existing systems accordingly. We are actively engaged at looking at those impacts.

Q:	With regard to CSMS, I understand that initially it was piloted to a group of users who were invited to enroll and that they received messages from the system. Is this still a pilot or is this now a production system?
A:	We sent out a message stating that the subscription period was open for 30 days in advance of putting CSMS in production. Since we are not yet “live,” everyone that signed up has not yet received any messages. When we go live on Monday (that is, February 11), you will get a message stating that we have gone live. If you have subscribed and don’t receive this message on Monday, let us know.

Q:	I have a question pertaining to the functionality that will be available for online forms. When we want to submit the form we have just filled out, will you be giving us an “are you sure” prompt?
A:	I am not sure; I will check that for you.

Q:	If a user saves a document as a draft, will other users be able to review that draft?
A:	We have that functionality on the CBP side, I am not sure if this capability exists for the trade. I will have to get back to you. Is that something you all want as a trade requirement? Comment from Lori Goldberg: The TSN Accounts Committee would like to review this in more detail; we just found out about this.

Q:	If we do a response through the portal will we be able to see that the case is closed and we are done with this?
A:	Yes, you will be able to check under the “status” tab.

Q:	I wanted clarification on whether we will be given the opportunity to submit a Census warning override in the AE input; if it is incorrect, will we get a hard reject if there is no warning associated with it?
A:	That is correct; you will have to resubmit the AE in that case.

Q:	You stated that reconciliation will continue in ACS. How do we file a reconciliation if we have underlying entries filed in ACE?
A:	Type 09 entries will continue to be filed in ACS. The ACE entry summary information will be written back to ACS.

Q:	Did you say that we will receive a “received” message letting us know that CBP have received whatever we sent you?
A:	Yes, in the status tab, you will be given the status level, that is, “approved,” “received,” etc.

Q:	Do you expect the record layouts for the AE to be posted in the next few weeks?
A:	Yes. They will be DRAFT with a disclaimer, unless otherwise noted.

Q:	I like the fact that we have 183 days to make a correction; is that still in A2.2?
A:	No, that is in the A2.3 delivery. We will first deliver post summary corrections via the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), followed by post summary corrections via the portal. We are planning to deliver these separately but close together.

Q:	If I file a type 01 or 11 entry and then realize that I made a mistake and should have filed a different entry type, what do I do?
A:	In those instances of realization of error with regard to an entry type, you will need to communicate that to CBP (that is, call them). CBP will inactivate the ACE entry summary and then put the entry summary in reject status in ACS; this will allow you to resubmit the entry summary in ACS. In the alternate, if the change is dependent on the CBP port, CBP will make that change in ACS for you.

Q:	What is the timing of post summary corrections? Is it A2.3? You stated that the ABI part would be delivered first, followed by the portal? When is the portal timeframe?
A:	Post summary corrections via EDI will be delivered in A2.3. The portal functionality will be delivered in the A2.4 timeframe, however, it will depend on how we disperse the functionality in A2.3.

Q:	Does the electronic issuance of these forms have any impact on cargo release?
A:	No, these are only for purposes of the entry summary.

Q:	With regard to blanket declarations, can you specify whether that is for cargo release, entry summary or both?
A:	Declarations are specific for entry summary. We are not looking for transaction by transaction cargo release type declarations.

Q:	Do you envision TOSCA blankets to be part of declarations?
A:	Headquarters (HQ) will define the blankets that will qualify.

Q:	Is the declaration time stamped to show that it was on file prior to liquidation?
A:	Yes.

Q:	You stated that you met to review “lessons learned” for purposes of A1. From the trade’s perspective, although A1 had little functionality, CBP still had a hard time with the deployment. What did you learn that you can share with us that will ensure you will not run into similar issues with A2.2?
A:	We will be doing more testing with more trade participation.

Q:	Will you test with live data instead of dummy data?
A:	Our goal is to use production data if we can. One of the challenges we have to face is that we have folks working on this that don’t have their clearance. Another difference is that that A1 was a big bang deployment and A2.2 will not be.

Q:	With regard to “certified for release” on the transmission of the entry summary, will that be passed on to cargo release?
A:	Yes.

Q:	Will there be a user date indicator on the status in the event that we submit forms at different times?
A:	Yes.

Q:	What happens when I need to remove the entry summary from the statement?
A:	We need to initially have the entry summary on statement and then if you delete the entry from the statement, ACS can still collect the entry. ACE will be the controlling system.

Q:	I have heard that the 5106 update is now functioning in ACE. Can we also do a change of address in the form of a 5106 update if there is no bond on file?
A:	If you have a continuous bond on file, you will need to file a bond rider with the National Finance Center. If there is no bond on file, you will be able to do the update.

Q:	If we have a type 01 entry as an ACE entry with a statement on a filer statement, and we also have some type 21s, will both be reflected on the periodic monthly statement?
A:	Yes.

Q:	If the entry summary data is accepted but the cargo release data is rejected what happens?
A:	You will get an HD (Cargo Release Output message) providing the reason for the reject.

Q:	Will the client reps be able to see our transmissions?
A:	We are building a new raw data tool for the A2.2 drop that should allow them to have access to both your transmissions and the raw data in the current ACS environment.

Q:	Is there a date when we can expect the final versions of the CATAIR documents?
A:	We hope to incorporate all the comments by March 1, 2008.

Q:	Will the A2.2 drop include some of the 10+2 criteria?
A:	We are looking at everything.

Cargo Control & Release Overview M1 and M2
Jerry Leuters

Q:

You mentioned that the power of attorney for the bond authorization will be used to obligate the carrier’s bond. The transaction of CBP business is limited to importers, self filers, and brokers. Filing a bond is not considered doing CBP business. Is there a regulation that calls for an agent power of attorney to be in place? You shouldn’t require that power of attorney without an underlying regulation in place.

A:

This is a misunderstanding. The functionality is called the “bond authorization file”; it is not a power of attorney. The trade requested that functionality so they could better control/manage who obligates their bonds.

Q:	Are the issues raised by GAO in successive reports being addressed in ACE as we go forward with the in-bond system?
A:	The issue we have with in-bonds is that a number of manual in-bonds that are processed never make it into the system. One of the things we want to do to help that is to automate the request for in-bond movements.

Q:

What should we expect in M2.3 with the Participating Government Agencies (PGAs) having an independent function from CBP in the release of cargo? We are aware of this with regard to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What we have seen recently is that when CBP began to do targeting on entry data we started seeing manifest holds after the release of cargo. If you are going to target on entry data, you should have what you need to release the cargo. This is a particular issue with consolidated containers. This kind of disconnect has created fines, penalty and seizure issues.

A:

Yes, once goods are released from the border it is harder for us to get them back. The problem we have is identifying when the goods are no longer in the custody of the carrier. When we send you a release message that means that the goods are intended to be released; they are not actually released. We are working with imperfect systems and we are trying to improve them. We have made some changes to the system to look at other data that is available but until we can link the cargo release to the actual arrival of the vessel and unlading at the port, we don’t have real time knowledge that the vessel has arrived and that the cargo has been unladed. If we believe the goods are still at the port we will place a hold on the goods; if we believe they are no longer there, we will not place a hold. From a legal standpoint, the goods are not released until they arrive at a port of entry. “Manifest hold” is a timing thing. If the goods are here and they are released and we put them on a manifest hold, there is a legal problem getting the goods back unless we issue a redelivery notice. However, if CBP sends a release message but the goods have not technically arrived, CBP can change its mind. Trade Comment: We are talking about goods that have arrived and that have moved to a container freight station and then the cargo is let go. This is a real problem for us. A: This is an issue of fact for litigation. We just don’t know.

Q:	If a bond user creates the authorization file, will the surety be able to view the bond authorization file?
A:	Theoretically, yes, but that functionality has not been built in. We will need a GIF for that.

Q:	At the previous TSN you indicated that in the summer of 2009 you were going to use the Air Manifest System (AMS) for the inbound manifest for the Virgin Islands. Is that still on schedule?
A:	That is not currently on the schedule. If you want this you would have to submit a requirement recommendation/GIF to support it.

Q:	Currently, if a carrier uses the broker’s filer code the carrier can run a report to show container status. That is a miss. Why do you need to have an associated broker filer code? That should be information that is viewable to the importer if they have the bill number; the importer should be able to query that.
A:	There are confidentiality issues here; we will have to take this into consideration. Trade Comment: The TSN Release Subcommittee has submitted a GIF for this.

Q:	What is the timeframe for QP for air?
A:	We are going to require at least three months of testing.

Q:	You stated that in May you will look for volunteers who will be able to send in trade data to your test environment. How will you get those volunteers?
A:	Our trade representatives will help us find those volunteers. We will be looking for specific criteria.

Q:	Are you going to let us know how that will integrate with ACS?
A:	We can explore that.

Q:	What is the nature of your dialogue with the PGAs? Are the PGAs working within the existing data elements or are they looking for additional data elements?
A:	In total, we have 300 data elements for all the agencies. We are working through a master document that reflects all the necessary data elements to allow clearance for purposes of admissibility.

Q:	If someone doesn’t go into the portal and designate someone to obligate their bond, is the default that no one can obligate their bond?
A:	If the carrier has not designated anyone than everyone can obligate their bond. As soon as the carrier enters one party as designated to obligate their bond, any party not designated in the portal will NOT be permitted to obligate their bond.

Q:

How will you mitigate some of the problems experienced with the truck roll out?

A:

We are studying what happened with that roll out before going forward with this drop. Trade Comment: I think we all recognize that there are problems with the “release date.” We are not receiving one indication of the “release date”; we receive multiple messages with different release dates. Some of this may be related to training or it could be a system issue. This is causing a lot of work on our end. We are glad to hear that you are studying what happened with the truck roll out before going forward.

Q:	When can we expect in-bond for pipelines?
A:	Sometime in M3.

Luncheon Speaker
Dan Baldwin

Trade Comment: The direction you have provided at this TSN and the discussion of commercial issues is a breath of fresh air. Overall this group is interested and willing to be engaged on an account management approach and how we can help to better these issues.

Q:	If we are going to move on an account management approach, one of the issues to be moved forward is transaction reconciliation. We need to move more importers back to transaction value and get away from doing transaction by transaction reconciliations. This approach would better serve the trade and CBP.
A:	We are looking for your thoughts on how to move forward on that; I am interested in having that dialogue.

Q:	I know that HQ is engaged in discussions on the account management concept. How does that flow to the regulatory audit department? They are looking at things on a level of transaction by transaction.
A:	If you are referring to focused assessment, we are looking at the internal controls process and the individual transactions as a function of your internal controls. If you feel you are being “nickel and dimed” in that process and your controls are not being fairly evaluated, you should contact the supervisors.

Q:

I would like to revisit edit lite. I applaud the Importer Self Assessment and account management program, however I don’t see you moving in the right direction when you decide to drop functionality that makes the system work. The system takes in basic mathematical information to further enhance the current process; you just can’t decide to ignore this process. Can I propose the idea that we temporarily proceed with edit lite, but agree that for some things, we will continue to allow the computer to do existing processes?

A:

We ran the numbers different ways and concluded that the vast majority of edits don’t produce a lot in terms of protecting the revenue, determining admissibility, and furthering the mission of CBP. What I suggested last night is for you to give me some actual data that demonstrates how the removal of some of these edits poses a risk. I don’t want to hear any more anecdotal references. I am asking for an honest statistical comparison to put this issue to rest. From what I have seen to date, this is not an issue worth wasting time/money on. Trade Comment: Edit checks have been considered as a primary concern by some companies and internal controls as secondary. Although I applaud the approach you are now taking, you should have taken this approach back in 1993 because now companies have to go back and reevaluate their processes to reshift those internal controls. The compensating controls you are talking about will now be more expensive than if the edits had been put up front initially. The risk is posed if no one is monitoring those edits.

Concluding comment from Lou Samenfink: Art Litman and Celeste Catano will be holding a session tomorrow to work through the critical edits that should be included. Mr. Baldwin is asking for statistical proof of any potential risk associated to removing some of these edits. Mr. Baldwin has also stated that by A2.3, if we assess that edits need to be pulled back in, we can make that evaluation at that time.