In a case decided July 17, 2017 (Slip op 17-85), the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that an importer was negligent by misclassifying their imports. The importer argued that reasonable care was exercised because the company relied on the broker’s recommended classification. The broker suggested three possible classifications and the importer ultimately used the one with the lowest duty rate.
The court ordered the importer to pay $8,228.20 in unpaid duties plus prejudgment interest but said more information was needed before a penalty could be assessed.
According to the CIT’s opinion,
“given the three conflicting classifications recommended by the broker, the Defendant had a duty to undertake some further investigation regarding the proper classification, whether it meant consulting the CROSS database of customs rulings, obtaining a second opinion, or consulting a customs attorney or other customs expert. There were also publicly-available customs rulings that, had Defendant consulted, would have alerted him to a potential problem with his classification prompting further investigation. Defendant could not reasonably have relied upon the recommendation of its customs broker under these circumstances. Without even questioning the broker’s changing advice, seeking any form of guidance from CBP, consulting publicly available rulings that may have raised questions about the classification, Defendant cannot have exercised reasonable care in classifying the entries prior to importation.”
In addition, the CIT found that the importer’s classification of all the items being entered were erroneous and that the importer thus negligently submitted materially false entry information.
The CIT ordered the importer to pay the unpaid duties because it failed to file a timely protest, rejecting the importer’s argument that a letter from its broker sent in response to CBP’s proposed notice of action constitutes a protest. However, the court declined to issue summary judgment on the penalty amount, citing the need for more details on the importer’s history of previous violations, ability to pay, and the effect of a penalty on the importer’s ability to continue doing business.
When I worked for CBP I regularly questioned what really constituted the exercise of reasonable care as required by the U.S. Customs Modernization Act, which went into effect in 1993. CBP subsequently wrote an informed compliance publication providing guidance.
The basic concept is simple: importers are required to inform themselves of all laws and regulations pertaining to their own Customs business activities. According to CBP, “the importer of record is responsible for using reasonable care to enter, classify and value imported merchandise, and provide any other information necessary to enable Customs to properly assess duties, collect accurate statistics and determine whether any other applicable legal requirement is met.”
What does the term reasonable mean? CBP will not provide you with a fail-safe definition. Nor is it a numbers game, where if I take these 10 steps, or 9 steps, or 8 steps, etc., am I exercising reasonable care? Obviously, from the opinion expressed in this most recent case, merely consulting a broker is not enough. Selecting the lowest duty rate out of a number of possibilities is not enough.
Importers must work closely with the members of their supply chain taking a hands-on approach to ensure accuracy. As with all legislation, the courts will inevitably provide the final interpretation. Best not to be on the losing side of the opinion.
An indictment of three shipping executives was unsealed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, the Department of Justice announced today.
Anders Boman, Arild Iversen, and Kai Kraass have been charged with participating in a long-running conspiracy to allocate certain customers and routes, rig bids, and fix prices for the sale of international ocean shipments of roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere, including the Port of Baltimore. A federal grand jury returned the indictment in November 2016.
Boman, a citizen of Sweden, and Iversen, a Norwegian citizen, are former executives of Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS (WWL). Kraass, a German citizen, is a current WWL executive. Including the charges announced today, eleven executives have been charged in the investigation to date. Four have pleaded guilty and been sentenced to serve prison terms. Others remain international fugitives. WWL has pleaded guilty and been sentenced to pay a $98.9 million fine. Three other companies have also pleaded guilty, resulting in total collective criminal fines over $230 million.
The indictment alleges that Boman, Iversen, and Kraass conspired with their competitors to allocate certain customers and routes for the shipment of cars and trucks, as well as construction and agricultural equipment. The defendants accomplished their scheme by, among other things, attending meetings in Baltimore County and elsewhere during which they agreed not to compete against each other, by refraining from bidding or by agreeing on the prices they would bid for certain customers and routes. In addition, Boman, Iversen, and Kraass agreed with competitors to fix, stabilize, and maintain rates charged to customers of international ocean shipping services. The customers affected by the conspiracy included U.S. companies.
“The indictment unsealed today is yet another step in the Division’s efforts to restore competition in the shipping industry,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “WWL has pleaded guilty. Now we are working to ensure that its executives who conspired to suppress competition at the expense of American consumers will be held accountable.”
“These indictments are the continuation of a long-term effort by the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office to secure our nation’s economy against collusion in the shipping industry, to ensure competition in the market place and to protect US companies from these deceptive practices.” said Special Agent in Charge Gordon B. Johnson.
Today’s announcement is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging, and other anticompetitive conduct in the international roll-on, roll-off ocean shipping industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section and the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office, along with assistance from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Internal Affairs, Washington Field Office/Special Investigations Unit.
At the recent U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) west coast trade symposium, a panel titled “Global Innovation,” which included representatives from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Science and Technology, CBP’s National Targeting Center [It is not clear if this is one or two organizations.] discussed innovations in software applications and data usage that enhance supply chain security.
One question raised by the panel was, what would a future port look like? The question I raised, in return, was what will a future CBP officer look like? The question remained unanswered, but is one that needs to be considered seriously.
As CBP continues to seek and use innovative technologies, it is the officer who needs to understand the technology as it will serve as his/her partner in both the agency’s enforcement and facilitation missions. Ultimately, the officer will need to become a savvy data analyst.
In addition, the operational personnel, i.e., Customs and Border Protection officers, import specialists, and trade analysts must be grounded in a solid understanding of the import and export dynamics of international trade. This includes production, sourcing, and logistics trends.
In order to be able to maximize the use of available technology, strategic and critical thinking skills must be in the officer’s tool box. Being able to identify, address and prioritize problems will be essential. The days of continuing to focus on low-hanging fruit that fails to bring positive returns to both the agency and the trade community will be over.
The mere accessing of data is a waste of time if the ability to evaluate it does not exist. Effective evaluation is critical to enabling supervisors and managers to make decisions on the optimal deployment of limited resources.
In general, the officer must be flexible and nimble as global trade trends shift along with the potential risk. Continuing to hold onto historic trends and patterns will only cause the officer to be reactive, instead of proactive, as new challenges emerge. In addition, quick communication by analysts to officers at the port is vital. There is nothing worse than acting on inaccurate or old data. If your efforts do not produce results you must swiftly react to make necessary adjustments.
Corporate compliance officers need to have the same skills and approaches to be effective and provide a value-added service across company operations.
Former CBP Official, Janet Labuda at FormerFedsGroup.Com, provides us with her take on the importance of verifying the accuracy of news information in an emerging world news can longer be taken at face value.
Over the last few months the fake news dilemma has featured prominently in the media. Day in and day out we receive bits and bytes of information through social media and other electronic sources that many read and take to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of how outlandish the claim or the source.
Such bits of information are rarely vetted either through our own personal “common sense” filters or through other reliable filters . This usually happens because we are pressed for time and simply can’t find the few minutes needed to verify and validate the information presented to us. What is even more problematic is that many of us pass on such unfiltered misinformation through broad electronic social networks thus perpetuating and exacerbating the problem.
The same holds true for the data we collect in the area of international trade. Customs uses data to drive every element of its trade facilitation and enforcement programs. Data collection and its subsequent crunching, dicing and slicing is the bedrock of their risk management processes. Decisions by Customs to focus on certain areas of potential non-compliance, on shifting resources to contain perceived risk, and on pinpointing companies and their transactions for audit, and further scrutiny are made on what data is reported.
The key questions for companies are: how reliable is the data that is reported, and who is responsible to ensure that the data is accurate and reliable? In addition, what internal controls are followed to vet information. Compliance means reporting accurate information on the transaction to substantiate adherence to legal and regulatory requirements. U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces strict record keeping requirements, which state “the accuracy of import (and export) information is important not only because it affects the revenue, but because accurate trade information and statistics are important in determining trade policy, the future eligibility of certain goods or goods from certain countries for special programs, the impact of imports on domestic industries, and the effectiveness of various trade agreements and programs.”
Companies need to established sound practices of filtering data received as well as self-generated. If data is not regularly tested and validated it leaves your company in a vulnerable position. By reporting incorrect data to regulatory agencies, whether you yourself file, or you use a broker to file on your behalf, your company may be subject to unnecessary enforcement reviews, and penalties.
When it comes to data reporting, garbage in, garbage out is not acceptable anywhere in the supply chain. Only accurate and reliable data can help to keep your company insulated from risk.
by Janet Labuda
I worked in Customs for over thirty years and met regularly with importers to discuss trade risk, compliance, and enforcement. Often, companies would express their concerns about the cost of compliance–the proverbial cost benefit analysis. If money is spent to create a compliance department, what will the benefits be? Do the risks of possibly getting caught by Customs outweigh the investment in corporate trade compliance? How can there be an effective response to risk without the associated high costs?
Just as with most things, there are rules that govern our behavior. When we drive to work there are lane markings on major thoroughfares, and traffic light systems, and posted speed limits to guide us in an orderly fashion. The same can be said for international trade rules. They are meant to make order out of potential chaos. No person or company can operate successfully in an atmosphere of chaos. Business seeks out predictability, and stability. The rules and regulations governing trade provide a needed stable structure that can help companies weather shifts in the global economy or changes to the legal or regulatory framework.
More importantly, the rules help to level the playing field, and enhance and improve the competitive business dynamic. When companies fail to operate using these rules the underpinnings of trade policy collapse. Trade preference program become endangered, national economies become threatened, sourcing models get upended, business relationships are uprooted.
In addition, companies can get swept up in enforcement actions. Customs assesses risk using somewhat broad parameters. It could be driven by product, country of origin, manufacturer, preferential trade program usage, or combinations of these elements. There are also those instances when very specific information reaches the agency.
The better question to ask is what price is paid if my company does not invest in a culture of compliance? Getting enmeshed in Customs or other regulatory enforcement actions can tarnish your brand, lead to expensive law suits and penalty actions, and divert your resources away from your corporate mission and goals.
Ensuring a strong compliance structure in your organization ensures greater facilitation of product entering the commerce which supports just in time inventory practices. Costs are reduced for both government and business by focusing limited resources to enhancing productivity. A compliance driven operation is a win-win.