Generalized System of Preference (GSP) Extended with Retroactivity, Instructions for the Trade Community
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
On October 21, 2011, the President signed H.R. 2832, which extends the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program through July 31, 2013. The GSP program, having lapsed December 31, 2010, has been retroactively renewed allowing for a refund of all duties paid on GSP-eligible merchandise that was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the period from January 1, 2011 through November 4, 2011.
Accordingly, filers shall be entitled to file GSP-eligible entry summaries, utilizing the Special Program Indicator (SPI) “A,” without the payment of duty for shipments entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption effective November 5, 2011.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin processing refunds immediately for entries filed via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) with the Special Program Indicator (SPI) “A,” for duties deposited on GSP-eligible goods during the period from January 1, 2011 through November 4, 2011. Importers are advised to contact the appropriate port of entry for inquiries about the status of their refunds.
For ACE entry summaries where no SPI was transmitted, retroactive GSP claims must be made via post-summary correction, where applicable, i.e., if the entry meets the time requirements for PSC filing. GSP refunds for all other entry summaries (e.g., warehouse withdrawals, change liquidations, re-liquidations, and suspended entry summaries) will be processed in accordance with normal liquidation or re-liquidation procedures. A liquidation or re-liquidation may be made with respect to an entry only if a request is filed with CBP no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the GSP renewal. Requests for refunds must be made in writing and must contain sufficient information to enable CBP to locate the entry. To expedite the refund, CBP recommends that the request indicate the entry number, line number, and requested refund amount. Claims may be made via post-entry amendment or protest, as long as they meet the applicable time requirements. Any amounts owed by the United States pursuant to the liquidation or re-liquidation of an entry of an article will be paid, without interest.
Copies of this memorandum should be made available to Port Directors, Assistant Port Directors, Supervisory Import Specialist, Import Specialist, Importers, Brokers, and other interested parties.
ATPA/ATPDEA Extended with Retroactivity, Instructions for the Trade Community
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
On October 21, 2011, the President signed H.R. 3078, which extends both the Andrean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) and the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) programs through July 31, 2013. The ATPA/ATPDEA programs, having lapsed February 12, 2011, have been retroactively renewed, for Ecuador and Colombia, allowing for a refund of all duties paid on ATPA/ATPDEA-eligible merchandise that was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption while the program was lapsed, from February 13, 2011 through November 4, 2011. Benefits under the ATPA/ATPDEA will commence on November 5, 2011, 15 days after the October 21, 2011, Presidential signing date.
Accordingly, filers will be entitled to file ATPA/ATPDEA-eligible entry summaries, utilizing the Special Program Indicators (SPI) “J, J+” without the payment of duty for shipments entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption effective November 5, 2011. For ACE entry summaries, retroactive ATPA/ATPDEA claims must be made via post-summary correction, where applicable, i.e., if the entry meets the time requirements for PSC filing.
ATPA/ATPDEA refunds for all entries entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the lapse period will be processed upon receipt of a valid refund request. Claims may be made via post-entry amendment (PEA) or protest, as long as they meet the applicable time requirements. In order to process a refund, CBP requires the following information:
A. A statement that the letter is a request for a refund as provided for under H.R.
3078;
B. The entry numbers and line items for which refunds are being requested; and
C. The amount to be refunded for each line item; and where multiple entries are
involved, the total amount due for all entry summaries.
A valid liquidation or re-liquidation request must be filed with CBP within 180 days of the ATPA/ATPDEA renewal date. Any amounts owed by the United States pursuant to the liquidation or re-liquidation of an entry of an article shall be paid without interest.
Copies of this memorandum should be made available to Port Directors, Assistant Port Directors, Supervisory Import Specialist, Import Specialist, Importers, Brokers, and other interested parties.
Note that a memorandum addressing ATPA concerns for quotas and textiles will be issued shortly. CBP is awaiting information from the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) prior to issuing this direction.
New Bill Would Ease Lacey Act Enforcement
Sandler Travis & Rosenberg PA / www.strtrade.com
In response to recent raids of a major guitar manufacturer by federal agents enforcing the Lacey Act amendments of 2008, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., has introduced legislation under which musicians, instrument retailers and resellers, and others would no longer be subject to penalties for unknowingly possessing illegal woods. While the Lacey Act amendments have “been effective in targeting illegal logging” as they were intended, a press release from Cooper’s office said, they have also “left anyone with a product containing certain rare wood or plant materials subject to federal penalties.”
The Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement Fairness (RELIEF) Act (H.R. 3210) would address this situation by exempting any plant product imported or manufactured before May 22, 2008, the date the Lacey Act amendments were signed into law. Individuals who have any wood that violates the Lacey Act amendments but do not know it would not be penalized and their property could not be confiscated. In addition, the penalty for violating the Lacey Act the first time, as it pertains to plants, would be limited to a $250 fine for all violations in a single offense as long as it was not knowingly committed. The bill also calls on the federal government to compile a database of forbidden wood sources on the Internet “so that everyone is fairly warned.” Punishments for those who knowingly violate the Lacey Act, as well as provisions that seek to disrupt illegal logging practices, would remain unchanged.
The RELIEF Act would also streamline the documentation process for importers and exporters of covered plant and wood products. Specifically, the requirement to declare the genus and species of the imported plant material on an import declaration would be limited to solid wood and items imported only for commerce. In addition, all federal agencies that implement the Lacey Act would be directed to (a) allocate sufficient amounts to implement the current and any future phases of the declaration process and (b) issue a standard certification process for all plant and plant products legally imported or manufactured after May 22, 2008.
CPSC Adopts Independent Third Party Testing and Certification Rules for Children’s Products
Rules ensure continued compliance with child safety requirements
Consumer Product Safety Commission / www.cpsc.gov
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has voted to approve (3-2) new independent third party product testing rules for domestic manufacturers, importers and private labelers. These firms will be required to test and certify that their children’s products comply with U.S. product safety standards as required by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. In order to meet this requirement for children’s products, the Commission adopted a framework regarding third party periodic testing to ensure continued compliance.
If there is a material change to the product, such as changes in the product design, manufacturing process, or the source of component parts, firms must re-test and and re-certify that the product complies with federal safety standards.
In addition, firms must keep records on the testing and certification for their children’s products. The testing and certification rule will go into effect 15 months after it is published in the Federal Register.
Children’s products that comply with the law may bear the label, “Meets CPSC Safety Requirements.” Labeling is voluntary.
In an effort to reduce the burden on all affected firms, the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission also voted to approve (3-2) a rule allowing firms to use component part and finished product testing conducted by their suppliers, in order to meet the testing and certification requirements, effective 30 days after the rule is published.
Firms are already required to do intial testing on some products, including among others, those with lead in the paint, those with small parts, full size and non-full size cribs, pacifiers and children’s metal jewelry. The new rules will require firms to go beyond initial testing to ensure that their products continue to meet safety standards. All domestic manufactures, importers and private labelers of children’s products will be required to test the products periodically to ensure continued compliance with federal safety standards.
The Commission also voted (5-0) to move forward with a notice of proposed rulemaking on representative samples. Under this proposal, firms could use product samples for periodic testing that are known to be representative of all the product manufactured or imported since their last periodic or certification test. Manufacturers would be required to document their testing and keep those records.
The new rules are intended to help clarify the options for testing upon which firms can base their certifications.
CPSC also voted to (5-0) publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on opportunities to reduce the cost of third party testing requirements, as required by Congress.
Commissioner Statements on this vote:
CBP Launches Centers to Facilitate Processing of Imports
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
Washington — U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced today the establishment of two industry-specific centers: the Center of Excellence and Expertise – Electronics in Los Angeles and the Center of Excellence and Expertise – Pharmaceuticals in New York.
The centers, which previously functioned as pilot programs, will continue efforts to increase uniformity of practices across ports of entry, facilitate the timely resolution of trade compliance issues nationwide, and further strengthen critical agency knowledge on key industry practices.
“The Centers of Excellence and Expertise will fundamentally transform the way CBP approaches trade operations and works with the international trade community,” said CBP Commissioner Alan D. Bersin. “They will also help facilitate legitimate trade while enabling us to concentrate our enforcement efforts on potential threats to our nation’s security and economic competitiveness.”
Initially, the centers will serve as a single point of processing for businesses enrolled in CBP’s trusted shipper programs, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the Importer Self-Assessment (ISA).
The centers will also serve as a resource to the broader trade community and to CBP’s U.S. government partners; center personnel will answer questions, provide information and develop trade facilitation strategies to address uniformity and compliance concerns.
Required import documents for trusted partners within the electronics and pharmaceutical industries are now being routed to their respective industry center. While revenue collection will continue to be carried out at the ports of entry, the centers will begin to perform all validation activities, protests, post entry amendment/post summary correction reviews, and prior disclosure validations for the trusted partners within their industry.
By redirecting work involving trusted shippers within the electronics and pharmaceutical industries to centralized, industry-specific locations, ports of entry will be able to more effectively focus resources on high-risk shipments and importers that may pose a danger to U.S. border security, harm the health and safety of consumers, or violate U.S. trade laws and intellectual property rights critical to our nation’s economic competitiveness. In turn, the approach to trade processing facilitated by the new centers will reduce transaction costs for the trade community, facilitate legitimate trade through risk segmentation, increase agency expertise and deliver greater transparency and uniformity of action within a given industry.
( More information on the pilots and CBP’s C-TPAT and ISA trusted shipper programs )
( CBP Initiates the Center of Excellence and Expertise and Account Executive Pilots )
( Pharmaceutical Center of Excellence and Expertise )
( C-TPAT: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism )
Guidance on Administrative Detention of Foods Now Available from FDA
Sandler Travis & Rosenberg PA / www.strtrade.com
The Food and Drug Administration has made available on its Web site a new guidance document for industry that provides information on FDA’s authority to order the administrative detention of food for human or animal consumption under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Among other things, this guidance specifies the following.
• FDA may order the detention of any article of food (except food regulated exclusively by the Department of Agriculture) that is found during an inspection, examination or investigation under the FFDCA if the officer or qualified employee has reason to believe that it is adulterated or misbranded.
• FDA may detain an article of food for a reasonable period, not to exceed 20 calendar days, after the detention order is issued, although this period may be extended 10 additional calendar days if required to institute a seizure or injunction action.
• The following information must be included in an administrative detention order: detention order number, hour and date of the order, identification of the detained article of food, detention period, statement that the article of food identified is detained for the period shown, brief and general statement of the reasons for the detention, address and location where the article of food is to be detained and the appropriate storage and transportation conditions, a statement that the article of food is not to be consumed, moved, altered or tampered with in any manner during the detention period (unless the detention order is first modified under 21 CFR 1.381(c)), and the name and title of the authorized FDA representative who approved the detention order.
• Administrative detention orders may, but not do not have to, require that the detained article of food be labeled or marked as detained.
• Transferring an article of food subject to an administrative detention order and/or altering or removing any mark or label that identifies an article of food as administratively detained is prohibited, although there can be exceptions for detained food moved under FDA supervision and control.
• FDA may approve a request for modification of an administrative detention order to allow for the destruction of the article of food or its movement to a secure facility, to maintain or preserve the integrity or quality of the article of food, or for any other purpose that the authorized FDA representative believes is appropriate.
• FDA will issue the administrative detention order to the owner, operator or agent in charge of the location where the article of food is being detained. If the owner of the article of food is different from the owner, operator or agent in charge of the place where the article of food is detained, FDA will also provide a copy of the order to the owner if its identity can be readily determined. If FDA issues an administrative detention order for an article of food located within a vehicle or other carrier used to transport the food, it must also provide a copy to the shipper of record and the owner and operator of the vehicle or other carrier if their identities can be readily determined.
• FDA’s authority to administratively detain food is separate and distinct from its authority to refuse admission of imported food. When a food offered for import is detained, FDA provides the importer with a Notice of Detention and Hearing, which gives the importer an opportunity for an informal hearing and a minimum of 10 working days to provide evidence or testimony for the hearing. To appeal an administrative detention order, however, the individual who owns the food should submit a written request to the FDA district director who approved the administrative detention.
• If FDA terminates an administrative detention order or the detention period expires, an authorized FDA representative will issue a termination notice to any person who received the order (or that person’s representative), releasing the article of food. If FDA fails to issue a termination notice and the detention period expires, the order is deemed to be terminated.
CBP Proposing to Increase Informal Entry Limit from $2,000 to $2,500
Sandler Travis & Rosenberg PA / www.strtrade.com
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is proposing to increase the informal entry limit from $2,000 to its maximum statutory limit of $2,500. CBP also proposes to remove regulatory language requiring the use of a formal entry for certain shipments of textile or apparel products, which is no longer needed due to the elimination of quotas formerly established under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. Comments on this proposed rule are due no later than Dec. 27.
All merchandise imported into the customs territory of the United States is subject to entry and clearance procedures. Formal entry generally involves the completion and filing of one or more forms (such as CBP Form 7501, Entry/Entry Summary, which contains detailed information regarding the import transaction) or their electronic equivalent as well as the filing of commercial documents pertaining to the transaction. However, CBP regulations exempt from formal entry imported merchandise whose aggregate value does not exceed a specified amount.
The informal entry limit has remained at $2,000 since 1998. CBP believes that increasing this limit by $500 will reduce the overall administrative burden on importers and other entry filers by expanding the availability of the simplified informal entry procedures. CBP has also determined that this increase will save the trade community approximately $11 million in merchandise processing fees annually (a figure that could rise considering that the MPF was recently increased from 0.21% to 0.3464%).
Source Document 1...
CBP Intercepts Cereal Killer
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
Khapra Beetle Devours Dry Grain, Rice, Other Food Matter
Houston – U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists intercepted what the agriculture industry labels as one of the most invasive and destructive pests – the Khapra beetle at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, October 17.
A CBP Agriculture K9 alerted to a shipment of personal affects arriving from Saudi Arabia. CBP agriculture specialists examined the shipment and intercepted several dead beetles and cast skins found in a bag of melon seeds.
Agriculture specialists sent the specimens to the local Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Identifiers (APHIS) for identification, and determined the specimens to be Trogoderma granarium Everts (Dermestidae) or Khapra beetle.
“Protecting our nation’s agriculture industry from invasive plant pests and diseases is one of our many priorities,” said CBP Director of Field Operations Jeffrey O. Baldwin Sr. “This interception is an example of how effective our K9 teams can be.”
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, previous detections of Khapra beetle resulted in massive, long term-control and eradication efforts at great cost to the American taxpayer. Khapra beetle are difficult to control because they can survive without food for long periods, requires little moisture, hides in tiny cracks and crevices, and are relatively resistant to many insecticides and fumigants.
Houston CBP Agriculture Specialists have intercepted more than 20 Khapra beetles this year alone.
Earlier this year, CBP began enforcing a federal quarantine order that restricts the importation of rice into the U.S. from countries with known Khapra beetle infestations. The introduction and establishment of Khapra beetle into the U.S. poses a serious threat to stored agricultural products, including spices, grains and packaged foods.
These restrictions apply to all countries where Khapra beetle is known to occur, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.
Infestation affects grain quality as well as quantity. Infestation of commodities with Khapra beetle can lead to the following consequences:
- Economic loss of valuable grain or other domestic or export products
- Lowered quality of products due to contamination
- Costs associated with prevention and treatment
- Consumer health risks when exposed to products contaminated with insect parts
In the U.S., infestation can result in the loss of export markets. If the Khapra beetle became established in the United States, other countries would likely place restrictions on imports of U.S. grain, or cereal products.
The melon seeds will be destroyed by steam sterilization.