(a) Eligibility. In order to qualify to submit information on the importer`s security declaration electronically, a Party must establish the communication protocol required by Customs and Border Protection for the proper submission of the importer`s security declaration through the approved data exchange system. If the importer`s security declaration and the entry or receipt summary are transmitted to CBP by means of a single electronic transmission in accordance with section 149.6(b) of this Part, the transferring party must be an importer acting on its own behalf or a licensed customs broker. One commenter disagreed that NVOCC should be included in the definition of ISP importer with respect to FROB cargo. This commenter stated that NVOCC did not have access to the shipping manifest master data, that it was not the party that caused the importation of the goods, and that it was generally not the party capable of knowing the details required to submit the ISF. This commenter added that the shipping company has control of the vessel and is responsible for the initial itinerary and any subsequent changes, and that an NVOCC may not be aware of the vessel operator`s decision to move a vessel through a U.S. port. (8) HTSUS number of the goods. The customs/statistical declaration number under which the item is classified in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS). The HTSUS number must consist of six digits. The HTSUS number can be specified up to the 10-digit level. This element may only be used for entry purposes if it is provided by the registered importer or his authorized customs agent at the 10-digit or higher level. Under the current definition, the importer of ISPs for FROB shipments is the actual carrier.
In cases where the shipper uses an intermediary, i.e. NVOCC, the performing carrier does not have access to some of the required elements for confidentiality reasons – only the intermediary has this information. In most cases, NVOCC chooses to file this information directly with CBP to circumvent privacy concerns, but the legal burden falls on the vessel operator, so some NVOCCs feel compelled to share this information with the carrier. Under this rule, the ISF importer for FROB goods is either the NVOCC or the performing carrier, depending on the party shipping the goods within the boundaries of a port in the United States. Based on CBP`s trade and analysis contributions, CBP concluded that these restrictions were not consistent with commercial reality and, in some cases, designated a party as the importer of the ISP, even though the party has no commercial interest in providing the ISP data and limited access to it. Therefore, in a Notice of Proposed Regulations (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 43961), CBP proposed to expand the definition of ISF importer for FROB cargoes, for IE and T&E shipments, and for goods to be delivered to a free trade zone. (a) Importer of security deposit. For the purposes of this Part, importer of an importer of an importer security deposit (ISF) means the party that brings goods by ship within the boundaries of a port in the United States. For shipments that are not Foreign Goods Remaining on Board (FROB), the importer of ISP is the owner, buyer, consignee or agent of the goods, such as a licensed customs broker. For immediate export (IE) and transportation and export (T&E) shipments, as well as goods to be delivered to a free zone (FTZ), the ISF importer may also be the party submitting IE, T&E or FTZ documentation. For FROB cargoes, the ISF importer is the carrier or joint carrier outside the vessel. The proposed Regulations were limited to amending the definition of ISP importer in 19 CFR 149.1(a) regarding parties responsible for depositing the ISF.
The commenter`s suggestions regarding suggestions as to when the required data elements must be submitted or the level of detail required for data elements under 19 CFR 149.2 and 149.3,[1] fall outside the scope of this rule. CBP notes that while these sections do not provide for exceptions to the ISF requirements based on mitigating circumstances, CBP may take into account the existence of mitigating circumstances when deciding whether to bring a claim for damages for late or incomplete filing of the ISF. This Final Arrangement adopts a proposed amendment to expand the definition of an importer of an importer security deposit, the party responsible for depositing the ISP, for certain types of shipments. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the definition of ISP importer includes parties who have a commercial interest in the cargo and the best possible access to the necessary information. Similarly, the current definition of ISF importer is confusing for IE and T&E freight. It stipulates that the ISF importer is the notifier of the IE or T&E documentation in these cases. This leads to confusion as IE or T&E documentation is often not created before the cargo arrives in the United States. This is problematic because ISF information must be submitted at least 24 hours before upload. To address this issue and ensure that the ISP importer has a bona fide interest in the commercial shipment, this rule extends the definition of ISP importer for EI and T&E bonded shipments to the owner, buyer, consignee or agent of the goods, such as a licensed customs broker. The rule also makes a similar change to the definition of ISF importer of free zone cargo. With this change, the importer of ISP includes the party that has a bona fide interest in the commercial delivery and has access to the required data within the specified time frame.
However, these effects are very small. In some cases, changing the definition of ISP importer merely transfers the legal responsibility to subject the ISP from one party to another for a subset of the total cargo (FROB; IE and T&E; and FTZ freight). For IE, T&E and FTZ freight, the party currently required to submit the data may not even be involved in the transaction at the time the data is submitted. In these cases, another party such as the owner, buyer, recipient or representative often stores the data, although that party is not legally obliged to archive it. According to this rule, these parties are included in the definition of the party responsible for submitting the data. Since these parties currently transmit this data to CBP, this change will not have a significant impact. For FROB, the importer of ISPs must either obtain the information from a third party that has the necessary information, or request the third party to submit the information directly to CBP. In some cases, the third party shares this information with the ISP`s importer, but typically archives the data directly with CBP for privacy reasons. In this rule, CBP expands the definition of importer of ISPs so that the party most likely to have access to the ISP`s information transmits it directly to CBP as the importer of the ISP. Since this third party already shares ISF information through the ISP`s current importer or directly to CBP, this rule will not impose a significant burden on these companies. The Importer Security Deposit (ISF) is required by U.S.
Customs (CBP). This document contains how to import information from any point in the shipping process. If the ISP is not properly completed or completed prior to shipment, importers will be subject to a fine of up to $5,000. CBP disagrees with the reasoning and commentator`s conclusion that an NVOCC should not be included in the definition of ISF importer with respect to FROB freight. For FROB cargoes, the regulations require the transmission of five data elements: the party that booked, the foreign port of discharge, the place of delivery, the vessel to the entrepreneur and the HTSUS number of the goods.
