'Said to contain' OK for bills of lading

Mon May 24, 2004
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says that although the term "said to contain" is banned from customs manifests, it still may be used on bills of lading, a British-based transport-risk insurer reports.

The TT Club sought clarification from Customs after the agency's post-Sept.11 ban on manifest descriptions of cargo as "said to contain." Customs said that for its agents to determine whether a shipment might be terrorist-related, it needed more specific information on containers' contents.

Andrew Trasler, TT Club's claims director, said in the club's electronic newsletter to members that insurers have worried that Customs' interpretation might rob carriers of an important protection when defending claims arising from cargo shortages.

Normally, carriers are responsible for any shortages from the quantity listed on a bill of lading. Carriers used the phrase "said to contain" on their bills of lading to put the consignee on notice that the carrier was taking the shipper's word for the accuracy and completeness of the load.

"It seemed to the club that the apparent prohibition of the STC clausing under the new U.S. regulations would leave members exposed to claims for shortages that were not their fault," Trasler said. In response to inquiries, he said, Customs assured the TT Club "that the prohibition on the use of 'said to contain' applies only to the manifests" issued by carriers.

"While the exact cargo details, weight and seal number must be replicated on the advance manifest system, that does not preclude the format of the wording on the bill of lading from varying slightly, for example to comply with the terms of a letter of credit." Trasler said. He said Customs advised that as long as there is an adequate description of the goods, the words "said to contain" may still be used on bills of lading.

CUSTOMS TO MODIFY ENTRY DATA FOR INBOUND OCEAN SHIPMENTS

In response to the petition filed by the League in January along with other groups representing shippers, ocean carriers and intermediaries concerning the advance electronic presentation of data on inbound freight, officials from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have informed us that they may soon return to the traditional definition and treatment of the term “shipper,” as implemented under the 24-hour rule. This would serve in place of requiring the identity of foreign manufacturers, suppliers or vendors on bills of lading as required in the final rules issued last December under the Trade Act of 2002 as amended by the Maritime Security Act   This rule posed major practical operational obstacles to all sectors of the ocean transportation industry.

In a meeting held on May 10, 2004, CBP told the petitioners that they would continue to delay enforcement of the final rule that was due to come into effect in March (Notice, February 27) for the time being. In the meantime, agency officials said they would shortly notify importers of a new voluntary program which would require importers to submit entry data on freight shipments at least 24 hours prior to arrival of the cargo at the first port of entry. Credits under the new program would be provided to importers that comply with the new program, while demerits would be set forth for non-compliance, potentially subjecting the importers to increased inspections of shipments.

If CBP is satisfied with importers’ compliance with the new program within 2-3 months of its implementation, then the agency would be inclined to return to the traditional definition of “shipper”.  This action would come through the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

Finally, the CBP said that it intends to explore whether additional cargo elements relating to foreign suppliers and/or consolidators may be added to vessel manifests in the future.

Customs will roll back 'shipper' definition

Fri May 14, 2004     By R.G. Edmonson
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE

WASHINGTON -- Customs and Border Protection has agreed to accept the traditional definition of "shipper" on bills of lading, and will launch a voluntary program to acquire more detailed information about foreign manufacturers and suppliers.

Officials met earlier this week with representatives of four trade groups that had petitioned the agency about the shipper question in January. Traditionally the shipper is the party that tenders cargo to a carrier, and that will be the definition that Customs has agreed to continue to use.

When Customs published final rules for new advance electronic reporting of cargo data last December, it defined "shipper" as the foreign vendor that originates the cargo. That definition would not allow forwarders, non-vessel-operating common carriers, consolidators or other third parties to identify themselves as the shipper on the bill of lading.

The National Industrial Transportation League, Retail Industry Leaders Association, World Shipping Council and National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America petitioned Customs to reconsider the rule. Customs agreed in principle, although it has not put the change in writing.

At the same time, Customs will launch a voluntary program to encourage importers to file entry data within 24 hours of a shipment's arrival. Entry data includes more information on foreign suppliers that Customs would like to use for anti-terrorism screening.

Details of the reporting program have not been worked out, but trade officials said that Customs will provide incentives for entry data in advance. Members of the Customs-Trade Partnerships Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program, for example, could have points added to their risk profiles, which means their shipments would be selected less frequently for inspection by Customs' Automated Targeting System.

Trade officials who met with Customs said the voluntary proposal appeared workable, although not all importers may be able to use it. Customs also will establish a working group with the trade to see if there is any regulatory changes that could be made to acquire the foreign manufacturer data.

NCBFAA tells FDA to harmonize food rules

Updated Fri May 21, 2004
By R.G. Edmonson
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE

WASHINGTON -- The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America is asking the Food and Drug Administration to harmonize its prior-notice deadlines under the Bioterrorism Act with Customs and Border Protection's deadlines for advance electronic cargo reporting required by the Trade Act of 2002.

The NCBFAA filed its comments with the FDA on May14. FDA put into effect last December rules for advance reporting of food imports and the registration of food-handling facilities. The agency re-opened the rules for additional comments in April.

Among the other recommendations, NCBFAA said:

-- Separate prior notices for each line of an entry was too burdensome.

-- Such perishables as fish and fresh food should be given expedited treatment.

-- The FDA should notify filers when prior notices are refused.

-- The FDA's online prior-notice system requires "significant improvement."

-- Filers should be able to correct notices without having to re-submit them.

-- Filers that are also registered facilities should not have to provide redundant data.

-- The FDA should allow notices to be amended, if it's done before the deadline.

-- Confirmation notices should include the entry identification number.

-- When importers buy food products from third parties, the factory name should be sufficient when the importer doesn't know the registration number.