TradeLane

How long has the reconciliation program been around? The prototype – yes prototype – will celebrate its’ 16^th birthday this coming October 1^st. So imagine my surprise when I was recently contacted by an importer that had been “kicked out” of the program. Since that phone call several months ago I have been made aware of no less than five importers that have either received the “boot” or been “put on notice.”

Historically Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has put up with importers that are habitually late with their reconciliation filings. Meaning CBP – via FP&F – issues the NO FILE liqudated damages notices, the importer has their filer process and file a reconciliation entry, CBP mitigates the penalty, the importer pays the Option 1 amount, and we repeat the process again next month. Works for everyone involved right? CBP gets a little more money via the Option 1 amount, the importer doesn’t have to increase headcount or reallocate resources, and the recon filer gets more filings this way. These habitually late importers – and they know who they are – seem to have taken the stance that they would rather pay $500.00 each month for late files rather than address the problem.

When was the last time you made an appointment with your doctor for a check-up? If you are anything like me, it’s been awhile. In fact, as I’ve set out to write this blog I’ve realized I haven’t had a physical in probably close to a decade. But, what really could have changed in just 10 years? Has my body changed that much?

Truth is, there is probably a lot that has changed, and with the health risks that run in my family such as heart disease, this really isn’t something I should let slip.

When was the last time your company did an in-depth review of the Harmonized Tariff Classifications assigned to the parts you import into the US? Go ahead and take a minute to think about it, I’ll wait…

I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say that you are guessing the last review was done sometime before the advent of the iPod, but after the Reagan Administration. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. I cannot tell you how many companies I deal with that find themselves in the same position. Unfortunately for them, more often than not they are only brought to ask this question of themselves because CBP has asked it of them in the form of an audit. If you take one thing away from this blog, DO NOT wait until CBP has asked you this question.

The importance of correct HS classification is evident. Wrong classification can lead to overpayment of duties and penalties. In some cases a Binding Tariff Information (BTI) can be used as a tool to assure that your goods are classified correctly.

What is a BTI?
A BTI is a written tariff classification decision, given on request, which is legally binding in all customs administrations within the European Community for up to six years from the date of issue. 

A BTI is intended to give you certainty about the correct tariff classification of your goods. It is not a legal requirement. A BTI provides you certainty that you, or your chosen representative, can declare the correct commodity code for your goods on the customs entry. It also helps you meet your legal obligations in respect of correct tariff classification ensuring that your liability for duties, VAT, and other charges are known in advance.

The business realities of global trade are constantly changing. Not only do importers and filers have to adapt to meet these realities, CBP does as well. The increasing complexity of global trade means more joint ventures, more complex import transactions, and simply many other situations that were not envisioned during the drafting of many import laws. These days many import transactions contain indeterminable information – that is at the time of import. More and more transactions involve adjustments to the price paid or payable that are not known until months after the import transaction occurs. Filers and ports of entry established processes and procedures for reporting these adjustments such as protests and prior disclosures. These local versions of “reconciliation” were problematic because the procedures varied from port to port, often had no legal basis, and lacked adequate financial controls.