I attended a conference recently on international law at St. John’s University Law School. Actually, it was nice to get out there as I had yet to visit the campus despite having considered going there for law school back in the 1990s.
One of the panelists, specifically referencing the DOHA Development Agenda, spoke about how, in his estimation, international trade law was designed as a counter-terrorist measure. For more on DOHA, click here.
Counter-terrorism activity is the number one initiative of US Customs and in furtherance of this, it has a requirement (one of many) that it must receive, by way of it’s Automated Manifest System (AMS), information pertaining to a shipment before the cargo is either brought into or sent from the US by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck).
According to US Customs, the cargo information required is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety, security, and the prevention of smuggling, pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by the agency. The specific inward foreign manifest (advance filing of cargo declaration - AMS) requirements are contained in 19 CFR 4.7 and 19 CFR 4.7a.
In true US Customs form, a failure to do this will lead to a penalty which is called a “liquidated damage.” Of course, through the mitigation process a party assessed a penalty may seek a reduction, which can be mitigated to as little as 10% of the claim, though from correspondence from US Customs on a case I recently handled, mitigation to this level is unlikely unless that party is a member of C-TPAT.
Does C-TPAT membership, or the lack thereof, sound like a reasonable basis for deciding on a penalty mitigation?
Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment