ISF (“10+2”) Enforcement Begins 1/26/10 – Updates Given at JFK Quarterly Broker's Meeting

To date:
- Over 4.5 million ISFs have been filed
- Over 2100 filers have participated
- There has been a 95% acceptance rate across filings
- 85% of ISFs are submitted through ABI
- 12% of ISFs are submitted through AMS

On Thursday I attended the quarterly Customs Brokers meeting at JFK which provided updates on matters under US Customs (CBP) , US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) jurisdiction.

The topic everyone wanted to hear about was provided by Joe Mortella from US Customs, who has been giving seminars on 10+2 throughout the New York port area and possibly beyond. He gave a detailed update on the Importer Security Filing (ISF) [19 CFR Part 149], the enforcement of which begins next week on January 26, 2010.

Also known as “10+2,” this refers to the filing of data elements (for ocean cargo) no later than 24 hours before the cargo is laden on board a vessel at the foreign port.  [See my Sept. 29, 2009 blog post for more information]

Mr. Morella stated that the enforcement of 10+2 will be a graduated one for the first 6 months, with warnings being issued to those who are non-compliant. During the first 6 months, there are no current plans to issue liquidated damages (a rule that is subject to change), and for the first year, all penalty and liquidated damages claims will be reviewed by Customs Headquarters. For those entities that are already in compliance, Mr. Morella indicated his belief as to a “seamless transition” for those parties, once the enforcement period begins.
 
An update to the Lacey Act and its amendments under the Food and Conservation Act of 2008 was also provided. These amendments mandate the identification and declaration of various elements about imported plants and plant products, including its scientific name, genus, species and country of origin.  These elements must be declared at the time of importation on CBP Form 505, or through Customs’ Automated Broker Interface (ABI).
 
Enforcement of this declaration began in April 2009, however Customs expressed that it has not been, nor plans to, hold up shipments where a CBP Form 505 has not been submitted.  The reason for this, we were told, is because the USDA is the agency responsible for investigating unsubmitted or incorrect information, and therefore that agency would be the one to prosecute violations.
 
Joanne Alba Foster, a USDA supervisor at JFK airport’s Plant Inspection Station (and Plant Protection Quarantine) invited the trade community to contact either herself or, another supervisor, Victor Jacobson, both at (718) 553-3500, with any questions relating to issues involving the Lacey Act, including:

- Propogated material
- Bio-tech regulatory services permits
- Plant pest products, or
- Phyto-sanitary certificates (for exports)
 
Moving onto the FDA, John Moore advised the trade community to pay close attention to the labels on shipping boxes to ensure compliance with the federally regulated cosmetics, drugs, and nutritional acts, as non-compliant labels are a major cause of delays and detentions.
 
Mr. Moore specifically mentioned that he wanted to dispel what he called, the “urban legend,” that there was a “50 Mile Radius” rule when it came to moving cargo off of the pier to be held for an FDA inspection.  He said that as long as cargo was under a bond, it could be moved to a warehouse or the importer’s designated facility (which may be at a location more than 50 miles away from the port) rather than staying on the pier and accruing demurrage. 

Curiously, when answering a broker’s question, John Moore of the FDA, said that should the cargo be moved outside of the port’s territory, in this case, the example was specifically to Boston, that due to the distance, if they were unable to get another FDA office to do the inspection for them, that they (his FDA office) would have to decide if an inspection “was really necessary,” and might decide in the end that it was not necessary to do so given the time and manpower it would take to conduct an inspection at a distant location.

Lastly, Mr. Moore said that routine assessments for compliance with ISF filings (“10+2”) were being conducted on paperless filers.  For those filers with an error rate of 11%, corrective action plans were done together with him personally, and thereafter an assessment of the corrective action plan was later done.  He invited the trade community to email him with questions about ISF Filings and corrective actions at john.moore@fda.hhs.gov.

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com