CBP Planning 'Enhanced' Strategy Guidance for ISF Enforcement
CBP is developing some new guidance for Importer Security Filing (ISF) enforcement efforts, said Craig Clark, who manages the ISF program at CBP. "There will be some guidance moving forward with an" enforcement strategy "that is a little bit more enhanced than the initial guidance that was given out," he said in an interview. Clark declined to go into specifics because the guidance is still in the "conceptual" phase, but said he expects information to be released over the next couple weeks.
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.
There continues to be some differences as to how certain ports are handling the enforcement. For instance, CBP recently advised the trade community that it will put manifest holds on any cargo at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach that does not have an ISF 48 hours before arrival (see 14012422). "To my knowledge, nobody else has taken the stance that L.A./Long Beach has taken" though others could if a port director wanted to, he said. That kind of adjustment at the port level is within their discretion and allows the port to prioritize resources in response to the amount of traffic it sees, said Clark. "Some of the higher volume ports have to stratify their enforcement posture a little bit more than a smaller port might, simply because of volume," he said. The ports manage themselves, but all "operate within the guidance" of CBP headquarters, he said. There's always ongoing guidance from CBP headquarters on ISF, he said.
Clark said compliance has continued to improve since the agency began added enforcement efforts, including issuance of liquidated damages up to $5,000 per violation (see 13060712). CBP is now seeing around 90-92 percent compliance rates on a day-to-day basis, up 10-12 percent from a year ago, he said. CBP headquarters has issued "very few" liquidated damage claims since July 9, when the agency began the new enforcement, he said. While Clark declined to say exactly how many liquidated damage claims have been issued since then, less than 1 percent of the 7.9 million ISF submitted since July 9 through Dec. 31 resulted in such claims, he said. "The great majority of those were compliant and nothing to worry about," he said. CBP headquarters has been reviewing all ISF liquidated damage claims originating from the ports since July 9 (see 13062613).
There's not much of a common factor among the filers that ended up receiving damage claims, he said. The "violating entities are as varied as grains of sand on a beach," he said. The only connection so far is that timeliness seems to be the ongoing problem area and was the violation in a majority of the claims, said Clark. While the regulations require submission of ISF data within the 24 hours before the cargo is finished loading onto a vessel, CBP does not have that kind of knowledge, he said. As a practical matter, CBP uses the date of sailing, minus 24 hours to establish the timeliness of an ISF, he said. Clark said he doesn't see a need to adjust that measure as "it's been pretty effective," he said.