CBP May Delay Nov. 1 ACE Mandatory Use Date, Says NCBFAA Lobbyist
CBP may be moving toward pushing back the Nov. 1 mandatory use date of the Automated Commercial Environment for electronic entry summary and cargo release filing, said Jon Kent, a lobbyist for the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association. Kent spoke during an NCBFAA webinar on July 28. The NCBFAA and others groups told CBP in recent months that the planned ACE timeline may not allow for sufficient testing by industry and the government and that more time is needed (see 1507170020).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The agency may delay the dates involved and asked for guidance from the White House, said Kent. "I think they've sent a recommendation to extend the November 1 date for up to six months -- I'm told no more than six months -- in some respects," he said. "They will create deadlines within that six months for certain types of entries, for example, for certain functionality, but I'm expecting that their recommendation has been to move the date well past November 1. That now resides in the White House." CBP and the White House didn't comment.
CBP is now awaiting response from the White House and there's some frustration in the lack of movement on the issue, he said. "When I speak to someone from Customs and I say 'When will you have an announcement?,' I think they're as frustrated as we are that nothing has been said thus far," he said. There will likely be "a number of changes" with how CBP will move forward with the ACE implementation, though details aren't yet available, he said.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of CBP (COAC) will also likely recommend some ACE date changes during the July 29 meeting, as expected (see 1507150063">1507150063), said Kent. Because the COAC is the "formal mechanism for CBP to hear from the private sector community, if COAC weighs in strongly against the Nov. 1 date, I would expect that would have significant effect," he said.
Kent and the NCBFAA are also continuing to work with CBP toward an update on broker regulations, he said. An "all day meeting" on July 30 with the CBP Office of International Trade is meant to help reach consensus on what changes are needed in the regulations, he said. "Depending on the success of that meeting and a later meeting we have in August, we may have substantial information that shows progress, if not consensus" on updates to Part 111, said Kent. CBP said in May that it had put the broker regulations update plans on hold in order to consider other issues (see 1505270062).
Customs reauthorization legislation will provide CBP the statutory authority to continue to administer Centers of Excellence and Expertise and appropriate funds ACE and the International Trade Data System, said Kent. The House and Senate are poised to depart the Capitol in the coming days for August recess without formally launching legislative conference over the two different customs bills (see 1507280025). Lawmakers from both sides of Capitol Hill are currently negotiating the terms of a compromise bill through informal back channels, aides have said (see 1507160059).
The House version (here) of the customs bill, however, contains a number of provisions that are concerning to the trade compliance community, Kent said. The most significant of those is language that would impose “stiff penalties” on brokers that fail to collect enough identification information, he said. That language puts in place the authority to fine brokers $10,000 and suspend or revoke licenses (see 1507070066). “We’ve opposed it in the House version and asked the Senate to weigh in on this,” he said. “The Senate has said that they would be our allies in this. And we’ve registered our objections.”
Kent also criticized language in the House bill on new importers. Those provisions established new rules on bond amounts for new importers and screenings for those shipments. “Our concern there is that a simple reorganization within a company can make a long-standing company a new importer,” he said. “And it also creates problems for those that are just getting underway.” The NCBFAA has additional concerns with House language to require non-resident importers to name a registered agent, which will be liable for unpaid duties and other penalties. “The problem here is that we see in a lot of instances brokers may be pressured by their clients to become the registered agent,” Kent said.