TRADE ALERT
CBP Publishes Mitigation
Guidelines for ISF
(July 21, 2009)
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
recently released Importer Security Filing (ISF) mitigation guidelines for
issuing liquidated damages for failure to comply with the interim final
rule’s requirements. The
guidelines became effective on July 17, 2009. Below are scenarios that can resul=
t in
liquidated damages:
=
·
Late filin=
g – I=
f an
importer submits a late ISF, then CBP may assess a $5,000 liquidated damage
claim for each late ISF.
=
·
Inaccurate
filing – If an importer submits an inaccurate ISF, then CBP may asses a
$5,000 liquidated damage claim for each inaccuracte ISF.
=
·
Withdrawal=
s – I=
f an
importer does not withdraw an ISF as required by 19 CFR 149.2(e), then CBP =
may
assess a $5,000 liquidated damage claim.&n=
bsp;
=
·
Updates – I=
f am
importer submits an inaccurate ISF update, CBP may assess a $5,000 liquidat=
ed
damage claim for the first inaccurate ISF update.
=
·
Failure to=
file – L=
iquidated
damages will not be assessed for failure to file an ISF if there is not a b=
ond
in place. However, CBP will n=
ot
release the cargo for delivery until the required ISF information is provid=
ed
and they have reviewed the documentation.&=
nbsp;
CBP also reserves the right to not permit unlading of merchandise for
shipments where an ISF was not filed.
Additionally, if such cargo is unladen without permissions, it may be
subject to seizure.
If an importer receives a liquidated
damages claim for a first violation of filing a late or inaccurate ISF or an
inaccurate ISF update, the claim may be cancelled by paying between $1,000 =
to
$2,000 depending on mitigating or aggravating factors. If there are subsequent violations=
, the
liquidated damages claim may be cancelled by paying no less than $2,500
depending on mitigating or aggravating factors. However, no relief to liquidated d=
amages
will be granted if CBP determines that law enforcement goals were compromis=
ed
by the violation.
CBP will look at all available informa=
tion
and take into account any mitigating, aggravating, and extraordinary factors
when determining the final assessed claim for liquidated damages or
penalties. Below are examples=
of
mitigating and aggravating factors (not a complete list):
Mitigating factors:
=
· =
Sh=
ow
progress in conforming to the ISF requirements during the flexible enforcem=
ent
period. (January 26, 2009 thr=
ough
January 26, 2010)
=
· =
Few
violations when compared to the number of shipments requiring an ISF.
=
· =
C-=
TPAT
tier 2 and 3 members may receive up to 50 percent of the normal mitigation
amount
=
· =
Im=
porter
shows steps have been taken to prevent future violations
=
· =
ISF
information was filed late due to factors outside of the importer’s
control, such as ship diversion due to weather.
=
· =
In
regards to an inaccurate filing, the party acquired the information from
another party in accordance with normal business practices, and can show th=
at
they reasonably believed the information was accurate, and it was not
reasonably able to verify the information.=
Aggravating factors:
=
· =
La=
ck of
cooperation with CBP
=
· =
Mu=
ltiple
errors on the ISF
=
· =
Er=
ror
rate continues to rise, which is indicative of deteriorating performance in=
the
transmission of ISF information
=
· =
Ev=
idence
of smuggling or attempt to import merchandise contrary to law
For more information on how to comply with the requirements of the =
Importer
Security Filing or how Deringer can assist you with this new process, please
contact us at 10plus2@anderinger.=
com &=
nbsp;
A.N. Deringer, Inc. is a = leading provider of international logistics services including Freight Forwarding, Warehousing & Distribution, Customs Brokerage, Logistics Consulting, Ca= rgo Insurance, and Meat Inspection. Deringer combines over 30 US offices with a global agency network to facilitate the movement of cargo throughout the wo= rld.