|
 Pressure
to Agree on C-TPAT
Journal of Commerce 2/28/2005
More than four months
after Customs and Border Protection proposed standards for the
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, the agency and the trade
industry have not agreed on what those standards should be. The trade’s
biggest complaint is that Customs is moving forward with C-TPAT standards
without making parallel progress on the benefits that the trade will
derive. It’s impossible for companies to invest in security when they
don’t know what return they will get. Companies that want to join C-TPAT
must balance costs against benefits, such as expedited treatment for their
imports.
Certain wooden craft items from China prohibited
The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued an FAQ
sheet concerning its order to prohibit the importation of certain
wooden craft items from China. In general, the items are craft
items that contain wooden logs, limbs, branches, or twigs greater
than 1 centimeter in diameter with intact bark arriving in the U.S.
after April 1, 2005. This prohibition apparently does not apply to
wooden logs less than 1 centimeter in diameter. However, they will
be subject to inspection for the usual unwelcome bugs. This
prohibition does not apply to treated, bark free or manufactured wood.
APHIS
Fact Sheet (dated March 2005) available at
USDA website.
Final C-TPAT Rules Out
Journal of Commerce March 28, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Importers that participate in the Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism have a new set of deadlines to upgrade
their security to new voluntary guidelines.
Customs and Border Protection posted a final version of the
long-awaited C-TPAT Importer Security Criteria on its web site.
Customs officials in the past have said that the new criteria will
further tighten supply-chain security.
Along with the criteria is a timetable for importer compliance.
Importers will have until May 25 to "harden" their physical supply
chains through new requirements for container security, premises
security and access controls.
By
July 25, importers will enhance internal supply-chain management
practices, including personnel security, document processing,
information technology security and training.
By
Sept. 25, importers must have procedures in place for foreign business
partners, including documentation that vendors are meeting the C-TPAT
criteria.
Customs has not published a list of frequently-asked questions that
are designed to provide more detail about how companies meet the
criteria. There are also no published benefits for companies that meet
the new standards.
Importers may find the new criteria online at:
http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial_enforcement/ctpat/criteria_importers/
-- R.G. Edmonson
Commissioner Bonner
Announced Security Criteria
March
26, 2005
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
Message from Commissioner Robert Bonner announcing Security Criteria
March 25, 2005.
The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
(C-TPAT) is the largest and most successful government-private sector
partnership to emerge from the ashes of 9/11. Launched in November
2001, with only seven major importers, today C-TPAT has grown to more
than 8,800 enrolled companies, which include United States importers,
customs brokers, terminal operators, carriers, and some foreign
manufacturers - all major players in the global supply chain.
From the beginning, voluntary participation and
jointly developed security criteria, best practices, and
implementation procedures were the guiding principles for C-TPAT. As
the program has grown, so has our need for more clearly-defined
security criteria to establish the minimum, baseline security
expectations for membership in this voluntary, incentives-based
program.
To this end, in late October 2004, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), in discussion with the trade community,
began drafting more clearly-defined minimum-security criteria for
importers wishing to participate in the C-TPAT program. After months
of constructive dialogue, we have developed minimum-security criteria
designed to accomplish two important goals: first, to offer
flexibility for accommodating the diverse business models represented
within the international supply chain; and second, to achieve CBP's
twin goals of security and facilitation. The threat of terrorism
remains a real concern, and I believe it is now time to move from
discussion to implementation.
Accordingly, the minimum-security criteria for
importers will become effective on March 25, 2005. Importers who have
not yet joined the C-TPAT program must meet or exceed these security
criteria before being certified and eligible for program benefits.
For current C-TPAT members, implementation will be phased in through
three steps to ensure that an importer's security measures are
consistent with these security criteria.
First, importers will have 60 days - until May
26, 2005 - to meet the container security, physical security, and
physical access controls outlined in the new security criteria. These
security elements will provide an immediate 'hardening' of the
physical supply chain.
Second, within 120 days - or by July 26, 2005 -
C-TPAT members will be expected to address internal or procedural
security elements, including personnel security, procedural security,
information technology security, and the establishment of a security
training and threat awareness program. These security measures,
internal to your company, will help strengthen overall supply chain
management practices.
Third, importers will have 180 days - or until
September 26, 2005 - to leverage their corporate strength to push
security enhancements back into their supply chain, from point of
stuffing to point of arrival and the CBP clearance process. These
business partner requirements outlined in the security criteria are
paramount to an effective supply chain security program.
As the C-TPAT program continues to evolve, we
look forward to continuing our dialogue with the trade community and
working in a proactive, positive way to improve supply chain security
and the security of global trade. Together, we will build a safer,
more efficient worldwide trade environment.
Robert C. Bonner
Commissioner
|
IMPORT: The FY
2004 Vital Statistics
1.41
Trillion of Import value in FY2004
|
|
Top Five Countries -
52% of total
value
-
Canada with 215 billion
-
China with 182 billion
-
Mexico with 146 billion
-
Japan with 125 billion
-
Germany with 72 billion
28
Million Entries
79
Million Lines
Duty Status of all Entries
|
Revenue Collected on Entries
Duties on China goods is 5.3 billion
(half of this is from
textile, handbags and shoes).
Softwood lumber from Canada accounts for 50% of
AD duties and 96% of CV duties.
Agricultural products from China
account for 13% of
AD duties.
Duty Average
|
NCBFAA: Customs Wants More Import Data
Agency seeking entry information from traders
Thu Mar 17, 2005 By
Bill Mongelluzzo
The JOURNAL of
COMMERCE ONLINE
SAN DIEGO -- As U.S. Customs and Border
Protection refines its security programs, importers and brokers will
be asked to help the agency secure better data earlier in the supply
chain.
Tom Bush, director of screening and
targeting for CBP's Automated Commercial Environment, told a meeting
of customs brokers that the bare-bones data filed before a shipment
leaves a foreign port is not good enough to fight terrorism.
"Manifest data is good. Entry data is
better. Entry summary data is even better," Bush told the annual
conference of the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of
America.
Customs, since Sept. 11, 2001, has required
that vessel operators file basic information on a shipment such as a
general description of the cargo, the port of exit and the consignee
24 hours before the container is loaded on to a vessel at an overseas
port.
While the 24-hour manifest rule gives
Customs time to screen and inspect risky shipments before they leave
foreign ports, manifest data does not provide the level of detail
needed to detect anomalies in shipping patterns, Bush said.
After a shipment leaves a foreign port,
importers or customs brokers file more detailed information on the
foreign exporter and the cargo that could help Customs detect subtle
discrepancies. However, by the time the agency receives the more
detailed information contained in the entry and entry summary, the
point of interception of a possible weapon of mass destruction becomes
the U.S. port of entry.
Bush said Customs wants "entry summary-type"
data as far back in the supply chain as possible. Ideally, it would
like to go a step further and receive the business-to-business type of
data found in purchase orders and booking documents when the cargo is
stuffed into a container at the overseas factory.
If the container is properly sealed and
loaded into "smart containers" that can detect if the shipment was
tampered with during the commercial hand-offs from the factory to the
foreign port, Customs will achieve an even higher level of security,
Bush added.
U.S. Customs, however, does not have the
authority to regulate foreign exporters. However, importers can use
the leverage of their purchasing power to get overseas factories to
implement such safeguards. Customs brokers and logistics providers,
with their increasingly sophisticated tracking devices, can ensure
that shipments remain secure throughout the supply chain, Bush said.
Importers, brokers, carriers and other
logistics providers are helping Customs to secure international supply
chains by joining the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. As
previously reported, the agency this year will establish a higher
level of C-TPAT certification that could include requirements for
tamper-proof seals and smart containers.
Customs will reward this new category
of C-TPAT participants by virtually eliminating inspections of the
shipments at U.S. ports, Bush said.
California Ports
Plan to Raise Charges and Contemplate
Storage Free Time Reduction
21 Mar 2005, CIFFA eBulletin
The Journal of Commerce reports that
California's ports are expected to increase their rates charged to
shipping lines and terminal operators by 5 per cent as of July 1, 2005.
Port executives cited increased costs due to security as well as
infrastructure development and maintenance as some of the reasons for
the higher rates.
Also, California's container ports
are struggling to expand their infrastructure to accommodate the
increasing trade with Asia. Containerized imports increased about 14
per cent in 2004, and analysts predict another year of at least 12-per
cent growth.
The ports also considered a proposal
to reduce the amount of time containers can be kept on marine
terminals for free before a storage fee is charged. They postponed
action on that issue in order to allow more time for input from
shippers, customs brokers and others in the transportation community.
The ports are considering two
proposals. They may reduce free time by one day, to four days from
five days at present for imported containers and to six days from
seven days at present for exports.
Also, the ports are considering
starting the free-time clock running the day after a container is
unloaded from a vessel. At present, free time does not begin until the
entire vessel is discharged. With today's mega-ships taking three to
five days to work, containers that come off first get as many as five
extra free days compared to those that are unloaded on the fifth day.
Freight forwarders and customs
brokers urged the ports to refrain from reducing free time or changing
the procedures for calculating free time at least until the terminal
operators have a mechanism to notify consignees and brokers as soon as
a container is removed from a vessel. Otherwise, the brokers noted,
they would spend hours on the phone each day checking on the status of
thousands of containers that will be discharged from the vessels.
This dialogue is in marked contrast
to the unilateral actions taken by Vancouver terminal operators that
reduced free time storage at the port without any consultation with
the community. Quite obviously, in Canada, we have not yet grasped the
fundamentals of Logistics 101.... There is a high interdependence
between the movement of goods and communication. One without the other
is a perfect recipe for delays, gridlock and congestion as we have
experienced in the more recent past. All modes need to step up to the
plate by acknowledging the need for a shared information market place
that allows for better planning! After all, maximizing asset
utilization is a key to a healthy bottom line!
New Generation of Ships will Force Big Change
Twenty miles of
trucks...And six double-stack trains. That’s what they will be looking
at each time an 8,000-TEU container ship disgorges a full load of
boxes at Long Beach Terminal. These big ships, replacing vessels about
half their size in the Trans-Pacific trade, are arriving in force at
West Coast ports for the first time this year. The larger ships are
staying in port twice as long as the ships they’re replacing, and
making twice the demand on rail and truck capacity. With a rough 50-50
split between rail and truck moves, each of the ships fills about a
half-dozen stacktrains and 2,000 truck chassis, which with their
tractors are enough to stretch approximately 20 miles. The stress on
ports, marine terminals and inland infrastructure will only get
greater.
China Ocean
Shipping Co. last month ordered four 10,000-TEU vessels for delivery
in 2008 and 2009. Other lines have ordered a total of 34 ships with a
capacity of 9,000 to 9,500 TEUs. In all, global shipping lines have
firm orders for more than 150 vessels with capacities of at least
8,000 TEUs. While these vessels are too large to transit the Panama
Canal and cannot call at East Coast ports via that route, East Coast
ports nevertheless anticipate that they will be welcoming a steady
stream of post-Panamax vessels by 2006 or 2007. Shipping lines could
launch five or six all-water services to the East Coast via the Suez
Canal over the next two years. East Coast ports must therefore deepen
their channels to as must as 50 feet as well as expand the capacity of
their marine terminals if they plan to cash in on the mega-ship boom.
Shipping industry executives are concerned that U.S. ports can’t
accommodate the vessels scheduled for delivery over the next three
years. (The Journal of Commerce, 2/28/2005.)
|
