Merging Accounts in ACE

Dear Friends,

We recently discovered a strange feature of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) automated commercial environment (ACE) that we wanted to flag for you.   

As you know, ACE provides importers with easy-access to a wide range of reports that provide extensive visibility into the company’s import activity.  ACE also provides specific functionality that allows the merging of top-level ACE accounts, which might be appropriate in the wake of a merger or acquisition.  (ACE guidance on the topic of merging accounts from 2012 can be found here:  Merging Ace Accounts.)  What we found strange is that what CBP describes as a “merging” of accounts, is really more like the “deleting” of an old account and the creation of a new sub-account that is unrelated to the old account (the old data is no longer accessible).

To illustrate, suppose Company A acquires Company B, and Company B will become a division of Company A, losing its old EIN, and continuing operations using a new suffix under Company A’s EIN.  Given that Company B’s import activity is being merged into the new consolidated entity, it might seem reasonable to “merge” Company B’s ACE account into Company A’s existing ACE account.  What’s odd is that merging accounts in ACE will cause the historical data from the subsumed entity to be eliminated.  Historical import data for Company B will no longer be accessible.  CBP plainly acknowledges this fact in the attached guidance, and recommends running ACE reports to capture the acquired entity’s import activity, prior to merging accounts.

This seems odd, to say the least (Company A should be able to continue to access Company B’s historical data in such a situation – it most likely assumed the liability for it).  We asked CBP’s ACE Business Office if they could explain why the system is designed in this way.  We were told that (1) CBP aims to “prevent unauthorized access by one (new) IOR of another no longer existing (old) IOR”, and (2) CBP aims to “prevent unauthorized access [by the old ACE account users] to the data they no longer own.”  While there certainly is an interest in maintaining the security of data in ACE accounts, it is difficult to discern the rationale for deleting historical import data for which the acquiring entity will, in most circumstances, bear liability on a going forward basis. 

If faced with the fact pattern described above, it may be better for Company A to allow the Company B ACE account to remain intact.  Post-acquisition, user accounts within Company B’s ACE account could be cancelled (as needed) and the Trade Account Owner might be swapped out (e.g., if the former TAO of Company B is not staying on is part of the new consolidated Company A).  That way, Company A would preserve access to the historical data of Company B it acquired—and now likely bears liability for—when it purchased Company B.  This advice may become especially important if CBP eventually eliminates the ability of companies to request historical ITRAC data, as has been rumored with the ACE transition.

So, in short, be wary of “merging” ACE accounts because, as things currently stand, you may lose access to the historical data of the entity being merged.

We hope you find this useful.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

Advertisements

Customs Conference Update

Dear Friends,

Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking at ACI’s Advanced Forum on Customs & Trade Enforcement here in Washington, DC.  I spoke on a panel with an attorney from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Headquarters about the interplay between transfer pricing and customs valuation.  I have attached the slides from our presentation here for your reference.

I also wanted to pass along a tidbit I picked up from one of the other panels that addressed CBP audits.  As we have advised previously, CBP is conducting more audits, but fewer of those audits are traditional Focused Assessments (FA’s).  Instead, with the transition of enforcement responsibilities to the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE’s), CBP is conducting many more “targeted” or “single-issue” audits (e.g., quick response audits, survey audits, etc.).  These focused audits are aimed at issues of perceived non-compliance, rather than at the internal controls the company has in place over one or more areas (like a traditional FA).  Also, the CBP speaker on the audit panel made it clear that, while the primary benefit of the Importer Self-Assessment program (ISA) is being removed from the CBP audit pool, that means being removed from the FA audit pool only.  Stated differently, ISA member can be (and frequently are) the subject of the targeted audits being directed by the CEE’s and conducted by Regulatory Audit.  If CBP is conducting fewer FA’s, and more targeted audits, this calls into question whether ISA members are really getting much benefit from the ISA program.

We hope this is helpful.  If you have any questions about either intercompany customs valuation or the audit issues discussed above, please let us know. 

Best regards,
Ted

 

Interesting Customs Enforcement Action

Dear Friends,

I recently came across a story about customs enforcement in Singapore that I thought you might find to be of interest.

The case involves a marketing manager in Singapore who was sentenced by a Singapore court to a fine of SGD$92,000 (roughly, $68,000) for counterfeiting U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Certificates of Origin provided to a U.S. customer, and for making false statements to the Singapore government when applying for the certificates.  It appears that the marketing manager was engaged in a scheme to help defraud the U.S. government of antidumping duties (i.e., passing Chinese-origin uncovered innerspring units as being of Singapore origin) and, in the process, making false statements to Singapore Customs.  A copy of the Singapore Customs press release is available here.

There are several interesting things about this case.  First, the prosecution was based on information supplied to Singapore Customs by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  It appears that CBP may have uncovered the fraud on the U.S. side and then provided information about the exporter to the Singapore authorities.  Second, it appears that CBP may have uncovered the fraud when the U.S. importer/customer underwent a CBP audit.  See Headquarters Ruling #h270834 (March 2, 2017).

We hope you find this interesting/helpful.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

Best regards,

Ted

 

Trump on Trade/NAFTA’s Future – Part III

Dear Friends,

On the NAFTA front, there were two further developments this past week of which we wanted to be sure you were aware.

The first was a notice from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office published in the Federal Register on Tuesday requesting public comment and input on what the U.S. position should be in negotiations with Canada and Mexico to modernize NAFTA.  Specifically, the USTR is interested in comments addressing the following topics:

(a) General and product-specific negotiating objectives for Canada and Mexico in the context of a NAFTA modernization.
(b) Economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers of removal of any remaining tariffs and removal or reduction of non-tariff barriers on articles traded with Canada and Mexico.
(c) Treatment of specific goods (described by HTSUS numbers), including comments on (1) Product-specific import or export interests or barriers, (2) Experience with particular measures that should be addressed in negotiations, and (3) Addressing any remaining tariffs on articles traded with Canada, including ways to address export priorities and import sensitivities related to Canada and Mexico in the context of the NAFTA.
(d) Customs and trade facilitation issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(e) Appropriate modifications to rules of origin or origin procedures for NAFTA qualifying goods.
(f) Any unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade imposed by Canada and Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(g) Relevant barriers to trade in services between the United States and Canada and Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(h) Relevant digital trade issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(i) Relevant trade-related intellectual property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(j) Relevant investment issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(k) Relevant competition-related matters that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(l) Relevant government procurement issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(m) Relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(n) Relevant labor issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(o) Issues of particular relevance to small and medium-sized businesses that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(p) Relevant trade remedy issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(q) Relevant state-owned enterprise issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.

Comments on these issues (or any others) must be submitted to USTR by June 12, 2017.  In formulating any comments, it is important to keep in mind that this Administration has a different perspective than previous ones when it comes to modernizing or liberalizing NAFTA.  We believe that this effort (at least from a US perspective) will be aimed more squarely at benefitting the United States than previous efforts (which may have looked more at benefitting the NAFTA region as a whole, or US companies with operations in Mexico or Canada).  The following quote from the summary is clear (and consistent with the Administration’s messaging on trade to date): 

“The United States intends to commence negotiations with Canada and Mexico regarding modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The NAFTA was negotiated more than 25 years ago, and, while our economy and U.S. businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not. The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the U.S. economy by improving U.S. opportunities under NAFTA.”

Emphasis added.  A copy of the notice is available here.

The second development relates to a study the USTR requested the U.S. International Trade Commission undertake related to NAFTA imports.  The study, entitled “Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Currently Dutiable Imports,” will examine the impact of providing duty-free treatment to imports of currently dutiable imports from Canada and Mexico.  Specifically, the ITC will provide a report containing its advice as to the probable economic effect of providing such treatment on (i) industries in the United States producing like or directly competitive products, and (ii) consumers.  The ITC has been asked to look at every dutiable article in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.  The ITC has also been asked to specifically address the probable economic effects of eliminating tariffs on any dutiable agricultural imports from Canada or Mexico.   

The report is due by August 16, 2017.  A copy of the ITC notice of initiation can be found here and the USTR’s letter to the ITC can be found here.

*     *     *

These efforts to modernize NAFTA/trade with Canada and Mexico represent a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity.  Every company that produces articles in the NAFTA territory, sources articles in the NAFTA territory or competes with articles produced or sourced in the NAFTA territory has a strong incentive to participate in this process.  Given how quickly it is moving, companies need to assess their opportunities/challenges and decide how best to engage now.  Those who do not do so will likely find themselves at a competitive disadvantage once this process is over. 

We are helping numerous clients perform this assessment, as well as develop and implement strategies (offensive or defensive) to maximize the potential benefits.  If you have any questions about how to go about this, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

 

International Trade-Related Executive Orders

Dear Friends,

What an interesting time to be working in international trade! 

We are writing to make sure you saw the Executive Orders President Trump issued over the past few days on international trade issues.  All of the Executive Orders are available here.

The Presidential Executive Order Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses was signed on April 29, 2017.  It directs the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to conduct “comprehensive performance reviews” of all international trade and investment agreements the United States is a party to, as well as trade relations with those WTO member countries with which the United States does not have a trade agreement, but does have a significant trade deficit in goods. The goal of these reviews is to (i) identify violations or abuses by our trading partners, (ii) trade or investment agreements that have not created new U.S. jobs, had favorable effects on our trade balance, increased U.S. exports, etc., and (iii) make recommendations to address the issues identified in (i) and (ii). 

Based on statements President Trump has made to date, we expect that NAFTA as it relates to trade with Mexico, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and others to receive negative marks under the standards to be used in the performance reviews.  What will be more interesting are the recommendations that are made to address those perceived shortcomings (e.g., revising rules of origin, withdrawing from agreements, etc.).  The performance reviews must be submitted to the President by October 26, 2017.

The Presidential Executive Order on Establishment of Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy was also signed on April 29, 2017.  It creates a new Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (OTMP) within the White House.  The stated mission of the OTMP “is to defend and serve American workers and domestic manufacturers while advising the President on policies to increase economic growth, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the United States manufacturing and defense industrial bases.”

These Executive Orders encapsulate much of the President’s trade policy, which is focused on (1) seeking to identify and remedy unfair trading practices, and (2) reducing the trade-in-goods deficits the United States has with other countries.  Companies should be viewing these Executive Orders as a creating an opportunity to engage with the Administration to help shape the recommendations for addressing the problems that they perceive exist with trade.

We are assisting numerous clients navigate these issues.  If you would like to discuss your specific situation and what you should be doing further, just let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

Recent FTC “Made in USA” Enforcement Actions

Dear Friends,

We are writing to let you know about increased enforcement activity at the federal level related to “Made in USA” claims.

In the past few weeks, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has resolved two administrative complaints filed against U.S. companies for allegedly making false U.S.-origin claims. 

In February, the FTC published an agreement containing a consent order involving a water filtration company based in Georgia.  The FTC’s complaint alleged that the company deceived its consumers with claims that its systems and parts are “Built in USA”, “Proudly Built in the USA” and “Built in USA Legendary brand of water filter” when in fact the company either imported its products or built them using significant imported components. 

Similarly, earlier this week, the FTC published an agreement containing a consent order involving a Texas company that sells metal pulleys for industrial use.  The complaint alleges that the company advertises its products online, in stores, at trade shows, through social media, etc. and uses unqualified U.S. origin claims, such as “Made in USA”, “Made in the USA American Product” and graphical depictions of the American flag, on the product and in its advertising.  The FTC alleged that many of the company’s products contained significant imported components (and some of the parts were imported from abroad already stamped “Made in USA”).

Without admitting wrong-doing, both companies agreed to enter into consent orders with the FTC to resolve the matters. These orders mandate compliance with the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims going forward, and include certain reporting and recording requirements.  Each consent order remains in effect for 20 years.  Violations of the consent orders lead to significant monetary fines.  Additional information about each case can be found here and here.

These actions are important, as they may signal increased enforcement of this issue at the federal level.  As you know, the FTC has adopted strict guidelines for making unqualified U.S.-origin claims – the ‘all or virtually all’ U.S. content standard.  In recent years, however, there has not been a great deal of enforcement at the federal level.  These actions may signal that this will be changing.  Accordingly, every company should review its product markings, as well as its advertising (including social media), to make sure that any U.S.-origin claims (unqualified or qualified) comply with the FTC’s guidelines.  If your claims are in compliance, you should also consider reviewing the types of claims your competitors are making to help ensure there is a level playing field for everyone.

We regularly advise clients on these issues (and have represented companies in FTC enforcement actions) and would be happy to discuss this with you further.  If such a discussion would be helpful, just let us know.

We hope this is helpful.

Best regards,
Ted

Post-Entry Preference Program Claims II

Dear Friends,

We wrote to you back in November about a development which was expected to expand the number of preferential duty claims that could be asserted for the first time via protest. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has now issued updated guidance specifying that all preferential trade agreements for which post-importation refund claims were previously limited to post-entry amendments (PEAs) or post-summary correction (PSCs) may now also be raised for the first time via protest.  This includes preferential claims under GSP, AGOA, the Australia, Bahrain, Israel, Jordon, Morocco and Singapore FTAs, and the Pharmaceutical Products Agreement, among others.

As noted below, this is a significant development since it expands the period in which post-entry refund claims may be made under certain preference programs.  It also breathes new life into protests filed for such claims that were previously rejected as “non-protestable”.  We have been helping clients secure refunds from CBP on such protests and would be happy to discuss this with you further, if relevant.

We hope this is helpful.  If you have any questions about this issue, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted