Lacey Act Import Declaration Places 'Heavy Burden' on Importers, Say Commenters
Extending the Lacey Act import declaration without considering the Lacey Act amendments’ increased product coverage “will have significant and adverse effects for North American manufacturing and supply chains,” said the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) in comments submitted to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Several commenters urged changes to the Lacey Act import declaration in response to APHIS’ June 6 request to extend the import declaration information collection without change. Public comments from industry cited the heavy burden of the declarations and, noting that the declarations are becoming more burdensome as Lacey Act coverage is extended, recommended a simplified declaration process.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and Canadian Manufacturers Coalition said the import declaration places a heavy burden on the bottom line of its U.S. customers. “Extending the import declaration data requirements for another three years will have significant and adverse consequences for North American manufacturing and supply chains,” the organizations said, particularly when Lacey Act coverage is expanded to include products higher in the manufacturing cycle. The requirement that importers identify the source of the wood or plant product “will become impossible” to fulfill, they said.
FPAC and Canadian paper manufacturer Domtar agreed. If Lacey Act coverage is extended without considering its effect on the Lacey Act’s reporting requirements, “compliance will become more difficult and costly and in doing so will adversely impact the competitiveness of forest products companies on both sides of the border as well as their customers,” FPAC said. Canadian paper maker Domtar said determining the exact quantity and genus/species used in the production of pulp & paper, as required by the Lacey Act, is not possible due to the magnitude and inability to gain exact measurements from sourcing. “While we generally know the quantity and species, we cannot attest to the level of specificity required to meet existing import declaration requirements,” Domtar said.
All three submissions suggested simplification of the Lacey Act declaration. While the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters / Canadian Manufacturers Coalition and FPAC suggested an annual blanket definition instead of the submission of a declaration for each entry, Domtar said APHIS should consider an approach based on importer due diligence. “The Agency should consider having the first company introducing (or bringing) a wood product, or wood to the market for the first time to exercise due diligence with its suppliers attesting they do not practice illegal logging,” Domtar said. The presumption would be that if a “product is obtained from a legal source the first time it remains legal throughout its manufacturing cycle regardless its end use by the industry,” it said.
APHIS' request to extend the Lacey Act import declaration information collection is available here. The deadline for comments is Aug. 6.