        Representing the NCBFAA, President Mary Jo Muoio joined with representatives from the CBP, other federal agencies and distinguished guests at an October 19 memorial service for long-time NCBFAA General and Customs Counsel Harvey Isaacs who passed away unexpectedly on October 16.
Harvey was always a strong supporter of our organization and, in recognition of his dedicated service, the NCBFAA Board of Directors unanimously approved a motion last June to designate Mr. Isaacs NCBFAA Counsel Emeritus. Even before 1991 when he became General Counsel, he was advising our Board and members on the legal intricacies of the business.
       "I knew Harvey for 15 years and, in many ways, he was a great man whose wit and humor were exceeded only by his sage counsel which all of his many friends here at the NCBFAA will sorely miss," said President Muoio. "We extend our sincere condolences to his family and loved ones." A partner in the law firm of Tompkins & Davidson, LLP, Harvey was formerly the senior partner of Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C., a firm dating back to 1926.
       He was a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Customs Law Section, before entering private practice in 1965. He has served as President of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association and Chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on Customs Law.
       He was also a member of the Treasury Department "Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service" and a representative on the Customs Service "Mod Act Implementation Committee." A 1957 graduate of the College of the City of New York, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration, Harvey graduated cum laude from New York University School of Law in 1964.
       In the memorial posted on their website, his colleagues at Tompkins & Davidson, LLP echoed our sentiments when they noted: "Harvey achieved much: his excellence at Stuyvesant High School and Baruch College; his Navy service to his country; his days at New York University Law School, from which he graduated cum laude; caring for his family; running two law firms for almost twenty-five years; and his many years as General Counsel to both, the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America and the Northern Border Customs Brokers Association, and his role in helping to foster the modernization of Customs operations in the United States.
       "During the past five-plus years of his tenacious struggle against the effects of cancer, he never lost his love of the practice of law, his defense of the brokerage community and his determination to see the Customs modernization mission through, like a good Navy lieutenant should. The attorneys and staff at Tompkins & Davidson, LLP will miss his experienced counsel."
       His wife Florence, his two sons, Jonathan and Andrew, daughter- in-law Katie, and his brothers Shelly and Gerry survive Harvey.
       In an earlier interview in the NCBFAA Quarterly Bulletin, Harvey spoke of his initial exposure, fresh out of law school, to the then unfamiliar world of Customs law, which he "truly felt . . . was a front for the CIA." Asked what had been most rewarding to him professionally, "Representing NCBFAA has been the most challenging and satisfying," he said.
       "Customs brokers are a special breed of client with limitless knowledge of the law and regulations under which they operate. They ensure that all of its counselors remain on their toes." All of his colleagues, associates and friends who cherished Harvey’s counsel, enjoyed his wit and benefited from his wisdom will remember him as a good and decent friend, which, at day’s end, is not bad.
       Rest in Peace, Harvey.

        Thanks to the generosity of Roanoke Trade Services Inc., an Affiliate Member and a Preferred Provider to the NCBFAA, the NCBFAA is again offering a $5,000 scholarship to a high school senior or an undergraduate student at an accredited college or university. Interested and qualified persons may request an application by e-mailing tom@ncbfaa.org or calling (202) 466-0222 to have one forwarded by regular mail.
      To qualify for the award, student applicants must submit a 1,000 – 2,000 word essay on "U.S. Trade Embargoes – Are They Effective Tools to Promote Change?" that will be judged by a panel of experts.
      To be eligible for consideration an applicant must be an employee, or child of an employee, of a regular NCBFAA member, but may not own a company involved in the industry. In addition, the candidate must be pursuing a career in customs brokerage, freight forwarding or a related field, such as international trade.
In addition to the essay, the applicant’s submission must include the following:
      • Employment verification letter from NCBFAA regular member firm indicating that the candidate or candidate’s parent is so employed.
      • Proof of acceptance to or current enrollment in an accredited college or university, your class year (e.g., HS senior, undergraduate freshman, sophomore etc.), and major area of study.
      • Short (100 words or less) personal statement on your career goals.
      All candidates must submit their applications postmarked no later than Friday, March 2, 2007, to 2007 NCBFAA Scholarship, 1200 18th St., NW, Suite 901, Washington, DC 20036 or fax them to (202) 466-0226. You may email your essay to tom@ ncbfaa.org; however, you must provide hardcopy of the supporting materials before we will consider your entry eligible for the competition.
      The scholarship winner will be invited to the NCBFAA Annual Conference being held in Phoenix, AZ, April 15 – 19, 2007 and will join the other Conference attendees on the morning of April 16 to receive the Award, which will be paid directly to the student’s College or university.
With offices in 11 U.S. cities and a network of agents in over 100 countries, Roanoke Trade Services offers global coverage and local service throughout the world.
      Access to leading domestic and international insurance companies enables us to provide comprehensive and cost effective coverage, with prompt and reliable claims management.
      Recognized for our experience and dedication to quality service, firms involved in global trade and transportation look to Roanoke Trade for insightful approaches to meeting their unique insurance, surety and Carnet needs. Creative problem solving leads us time and again to set industry standards. This inspiration stems from a genuine commitment to our clients. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your specific risk management requirements and determine how we might put our experience to work for you. From specialized marine and surety protection, to complex property and casualty coverage, Roanoke Trade is prepared to meet your needs now and in the years ahead.

NCBFAA Finds Support As It Represents Industry
        The NCBFAA has long considered itself to be the voice of the transportation logistics industry in the United States. Given our broad based membership and the respect of Customs and Border Protection we have long enjoyed, such a characterization does not seem unreasonable. But the truth is, that on a number of issues, we really are one voice among many and, while no two organizations share identical goals, there are instances where NCBFAA interests coincide with those of other logistics organizations.
      Whenever we find such common interests, the NCBFAA will often reach out to those groups, whether well established or ad hoc, who share our issues to insure that we present as strong and united a front as possible when making our case. For example, one group we frequently collaborate with in commenting on the effects of proposed legislative and regulatory actions on our industry is the Joint Industry Group (JIG).
      Another instance of working with a fellow organization is our NCBFAA Educational Institute’s Certified Customs Specialist (CCS) Program, which is modeled on the CCS program of the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers (CSCB). Our formal partnership with CSCB has proven to be quite successful and, as a result, we have enrolled more than 2,500 individuals to date in this program.
      With the dominant role security plays in the business lives of Association members it stands to reason that one group with which we would become actively involved is the International Cargo Security Counsel (ICSC). Maintaining an ongoing dialogue with ICSC ensures that the shared experiences of our memberships are recognized in any policy recommendations either of us makes regarding security initiatives planned or proposed by the Department of Homeland Security or others.
      Our current outreach relationships are being strengthened as more issues arise in the increasingly complex world of trade.
      While these arrangements are generally invoked as needed, we recently took a step that will take such linkages to the next level.
      In a move designed to provide our members with greater global reach as well as enhance the US presence of an international nongovernmental agency (NGO), the NCBFAA has been elected to full membership in the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA).
      This NCBFAA involvement with FIATA will provide Association members access to a voice recognized across the world. This is important as NCBFAA members continue to expand operations from single customs broker locations to multifaceted logistics providers moving freight to and from all corners of our changing world.
      "This symbiotic alliance will bolster NCBFAA’s prestige in Europe while simultaneously significantly enhancing FIATA’s position with America’s transportation logistics community," NCBFAA Senor Counselor Michael Dugan said.
      One of the prime movers in bringing this alliance to fruition, Mr. Dugan believes that "NCBFAA membership in FIATA will improve the NCBFAA’s international credibility as well as enable us to more effectively share our forwarder experience with them." NCBFAA’s FIATA membership allows both organizations to work together on common goals and provides a great forum for our members to meet counterparts in our industry at annual world events as well as the opportunity to develop meaningful agent relationships. In addition, it offers to Association members profound benefits that include, among others:
      • Use of the FIATA documents, which have an excellent reputation and are recognized as documents of trust.
      • First hand trade/industry information from almost any country.
      • Coordination of the local industry's policy with the worldwide freight forwarding and logistics industry.
      • Active participation in FIATA's various bodies (Regional meeting "Americas," Institutes and Advisory Bodies); • Influence on decisions regarding issues of importance to our industry, which FIATA addresses with international organizations.
      • Platform for communication and networking.
      Along with uniting worldwide forwarders, FIATA offers vocational training; expertise in Customs, multimodal and airfreight matters through Advisory Boards; and, most importantly, an annual worldwide meeting that allows members to come together to share social and professional experiences.
      In furtherance of its mission, FIATA has consultative status with the United Nations Economic Council, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the United Nations Economic Commission for trade in both Europe (UN/ECE), and Asia and the Pacific (UN/ESCAP).
      FIATA is involved in the International Chamber of Commerce, IATA, the World Customs Organization (WCO), and has strong influence across the world with various governments’ that debate trade matters.
      Founded in Vienna in 1926, FIATA is the largest and leading transportation non-governmental organization, representing 40,000 forwarding and logistics companies employing up to 10 million people in 150 countries.
      FIATA has consultative status with several United Nations bodies and is recognized by many governmental and private organizations worldwide. The Federation’s main objectives are to promote and protect the interests of the freight forwarding industry, to improve the quality of freight forwarding services, to assist with vocational training and to familiarize the business world in particular and the public in general with the wide range services rendered by the industry.
      Although the Association is a dues-paying member of FIATA, we currently have in place somewhat less formal reciprocal membership arrangements with a number of other groups including:

American Association of Exporters and Importers
Mr. Hallock Northcott,
President & CEO
1050 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 857-8009
Airforwarders Association
Mr. Brandon Fried, Executive Director
1156 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 393-2818
ALACAT
Mr. Orlando Yanez, President
8860 NW 102 Street
Medley, FL 33178
Phone: (809) 476-0800
Association of Laredo Forwarding Agents, Inc.
Mr. Glafiro Salinas,
107 Calle del Norte Ste. 114
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 724-3943
Canadian Society of Customs Brokers
Ms. Carol West,
Suite 320,
55 Murray Street
Ottowa,
Phone: (613) 562-3543
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
Ms. Rick Blasgen, President & CEO
2803 Butterfield Road, Suite 200
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: (630) 645-3469
The Federation of International Trade Associations
Ms. Kim Parker, Director of Membership
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210
Reston, VA 20191
Phone: (703) 620-1588

Int’l Warehouse Logistics Association
Mr. Joel D. Anderson, President and CEO
2800 River Road, Suite 260
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Phone: (847) 813-4699
Intermodal Association of North America
Mr. James R. Morrow, Director - Member Services
11785 Beltsville Drive Suite 1100
Calverton, MD 207054048
Phone: (301) 982-3400
International Cargo Security Counsel
Mr. William Corley, Executive Director
1400 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 962-0190
International Wood Products Association
Mr. Brent J. McClendon, CAE
4214 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: (703) 820-6696
Joint Industry Group
Mr. Shane Danielson, Administrator
1620 I Street NW, Suite 615
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 466-5490
National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones
Mr. Willard M. Berry, Executive Director
1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1001
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 331-1950
NEXCO Ms. Betsy Shieh, Exec. Director
P.O. Box 3949
Grand Central Station
New York, NY 10163
Phone: (877) 291-4901
World Trade Center Miami
Ms. Charlotte A. Gallogly, President
1007 N. American Way, Ste. 500
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 871-7910

As you can see the Association is involved in a vast array of diverse industry related organizations in its ongoing effort to provide the membership with every opportunity to be heard and to influence the commercial environment within which it conducts the vital business of international trade.

2007 Conference Is A Must Attend For Many Reasons
        Following up of President Muoio’s comments, the NCBFAA is becoming more and more recognized by industry participants, which is hopefully reflected in the significant number of firms seeking membership. Since our last Board meeting where 12 new members were admitted, 22 new candidates for membership have applied and, if the Board approves at its upcoming meeting, they too will join the ranks of NCBFAA members.
      This group of prospective members includes regular, affiliate and associate categories, which is indicative of the wide appeal association with the NCBFAA has for industry participants. Here are just a few advantages of being an NCBFAA member:
      • Stay connected to current industry changes
      • C-TPAT program representation
      • Be alerted about changes in FMC regulations
      • Have a voice in regulatory and legislative issues in Washington DC
      • Learn to stay compliant with new import and export regulations
      • Network with other transportation professionals
      • Become a Certified Customs Specialist
      • Train employees in-house via remote classes (NCBFAA EI)
      • Have national representation on border & inbound cargo issues
      • Get weekly industry updates via email (Monday Morning e-Briefing)
      • Have an independent organization help with specific issues on a national level
      • Obtain written language for house bill of lading to protect your company
      • Obtain the newest ACE, periodic payment and other CBP updates
      • Attend business NCBFAA conferences at reduced member rates
      The Board expresses its thanks to all current members who have already supported our efforts on their behalf by sending in their 2007 renewal dues that went out later than usual this year.
      Speaking of conferences, have you registered yet for the NCBFAA Annual Conference this April outside Phoenix, Arizona at the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort and Spa? The site is an ideal location in the Sonoran Desert on an expanse of rugged Arizona landscape where the ancient vistas, mountains and roaming wild horses remain untouched.
      A unique blend of two cultures, the resort offers the quiet serenity created by Native American tribes who found haven here.
      Where else can you join your industry peers in such a unique venue complete with leading representatives from the federal regulatory agencies and informative private industry experts, engaging sessions and workshops, interesting exhibits, premier Class A golf, (of course!) spouse/guest tours, AND a luxurious, five-star world-class resort spa and fitness center, at such affordable prices? (Reminder: our room block is expected to sell out, so be sure to book now!) Under the reliable leadership of Conference Chairman Pancho Averill, Corrigan Dispatch the sole focus of the committee is to concentrate on making your conference experience unforgettably worthwhile.
Created with the Committee’s uncommon commitment to detail, the sessions will have everything necessary for you to experience innovative, memorable and successful events.
      Along with Chairman Averill, the committee includes:
      • Program Co-Chair William S. App, J. W. Allen & Co., Inc.
      • Program Co-Chair Ken Bargteil, Kuehne and Nagel
      • Sponsorship Chair Peter Powell, C.H. Powell Company
      • Golf Chairman Bobby Garcia, R. W. Smith & Co., Inc.
• Spouse Chair Anita Averill
       • Committee Member Mary Jo Muoio, Barthco Int'l, Inc.
       • Committee Member Mark Johnson, Mc- Clary, Swift & Co. - Blaine, Inc.
       • Committee Member Amy Magnus, A. N. Deringer, Inc.
       • Committee Member Joseph Meunier, New England Groupage
       • Committee Member Robert A. Perkins, Meridian IQ
       To better serve our members and those visiting our site, the NCBFAA has undertaken a major upgrade and redesign of its web presence. Working with the designers and programmers from ResultsDirect, the providers of our NEI education site, we are creating what we believe will be a modern and useful tool for professional logisticians, their clients, students of the industry, officials and other interested individuals. The project is under the oversight of the NCBFAA Communications Committee, chaired by Arturo Dominguez, A Brokerage Firm and composed of Shane Garcia, R. W. Smith & Co., Inc.; Darrell Sekin, Jr., DJS International Services, Inc.; and Michelle Maslow.
       Designed with the user in mind, the new site will permit visitors to find information more easily by arranging it in logical and related groupings. There will be more robust search engine capability as well as upgraded communication capability to include chat rooms and forums. A key improvement will be the event registration function that will permit those wishing to attend our Annual Conference, Government Affairs Conference or our many certification qualification seminars to register and pay for these online.
       Supporting the site is CMSPlus, a content management software program that provides an efficient and effective method to keep the information current and useful.
       Every year, one half of the NCBFAA Board of Directors has to stand for reelection.
       The following Directors’ terms expire in April 2007:
       • Area 1 (Northern Border), Mark Johnson McClary, Swift & Co. - Blaine, Inc.
       • Area 2 (New York Region), Cary Weinberg CW Logistics Corporation
       • Area 3 (Northeast Region), Joe Meunier New England Groupage
       • Area 4 (Southeast Region), Jan Fields John S. James Co.
       • Area 5 (North Central Region), Joe Trulik FedEx Trade Networks
       • Area 6 (Pacific Region), Bob Coleman TLR - Total Logistics Resource, Inc.
       • Area 7 (South Central & SW Regions), Shane Garcia, R. W. Smith & Co., Inc.
       • Area 8 (Southern Border Region), A. E. Neto Roser, Roser & Cowen Logistical Customs Services Ltd.
       • Area 9, Roger Clarke Williams Clarke Co., Inc
       With the exception of Area 8 whose Director has served the maximum four terms, all are eligible to serve additional terms.
       For each position that expires in April 2007, the NCBFAA by-laws provide that each Affiliated Association may nominate a candidate each year for the position of director to represent the members in its geographical area, and that each director elected shall serve a term of two years to commence at the conclusion of the annual conference. The by-laws also provide that no individual shall serve more than four consecutive terms as a director representing an area, and no two persons employed by the same firm shall serve concurrently as officers or as voting members of the board. The by-laws also provide that any 10 members in an area may nominate a director to represent that area by subscribing their names to a nominating petition.
       Nominations are limited to employees of NCBFAA Regular member firms within the geographical area covered by the Affiliated Association. The by-laws provide that nominations are to be made by the Affiliated Associations, so as to ensure that those making the nominations are in a position to know the candidate’s qualifications to serve.
       For the 2007 elections, all nominations and nominating petitions must be received at NCBFAA headquarters no later than close of business, Friday, March 2, 2007 (i.e., 45 days before the Annual Meeting). In the event of a contested election, the nominated candidate names shall be placed on a ballot and proxies sent to all Regular Members in that geographical area by Saturday, March 17, 2007 (i.e., 30 days before the Annual Meeting). The results of the election will be announced at the Annual Meeting to be held on Monday, April 16, 2007, at the NCBFAA Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona.In closing I wanted to add that those of you interacting with the NCBFAA Office might have found a few new friendly voices on staff. We are happy to welcome our new Education Director Jan paul Miller, Accountant Ms. Diane Washabaugh and Administrative Assistant Ms. Iyan Hankins.
       I’d like to recognize and thank from the bottom of our hearts, all our volunteers and benefactors for your contributions throughout the year. The infinite hours and endless days of representing the members at large in various NCBFAA committee and Board meetings where you continue to do your best to provide our most valuable supporters, our members, with the essentials necessary to keep them informed, is almost beyond belief.
       And I believe the effort of these folks on behalf of our Association is one of the major reasons that industry participants want to be a part of the NCBFAA.
       As we go to press with the final Bulletin of 2006, and on behalf of staff, I’d like to wish all of you a happy, healthy, prosperous New Year and remind you that if it applies to you, it’s still not too late to make that resolution to get involved on a local or national basis, so give us a call!

       Change: From What…to What?
               Change is not new to Washington. Every decade or so the voters rise up and things are not the same. And so it is as we begin a new day in Congress. The voters have spoken.
       Change is here. But what does it mean for us – we who care about trade? It would be wrong to believe that a change in party leadership means just flipping the "R" column to "D" and vice versa in each committee. It would be equally misleading to look at minority Democrats in the 109th Congress to predict the majority Democrats’ behavior in the 110th Congress. Not only have party labels changed, but the dynamic is completely different. What worked as a strategy for a minority party for 12 years will not be effective for a party in control. To respond to the massive voter discontent registered at the polls, Democrats must lead. And to lead, they must take responsibility for the policies they espouse. It is one thing to shoot down trade agreements or propose trade-unfriendly security measures when you do not have to live with the results of your position. It is quite another story to be the elected official in charge with real consequences for your decisions.
       Bear in mind also, the Democratic leaders who will be in charge of trade are known quantities. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), the incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is no stranger to our issues and has consistently worked in a balanced, bipartisan manner on trade and customs issues.
       He is a huge fan of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement and other agreements that will open foreign markets to US and Montana exports.
       Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who will be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is an old-style politician with good political instincts. He can be expected to try to reach consensus and forge compromises -- a skill that will serve him well in the new environment. Already he has gone out of his way to appear conciliatory towards the White House, emphasizing his intent to work cooperatively with the Administration and House Republicans to get things done.
       The House Trade Subcommittee Chairman, Sander Levin (D-MI) has been known to take some tough stands on trade issues and is very focused, as is Chairman Rangel, on labor rights in the context of trade, but he has always been very approachable. The bottom line: Yes, they will be singing a different tune about trade, but we know these people. We can work with them.
       It would be a grave miscalculation, however, to think that this change is just a shift in focus that a little Washington back-slapping can cure. Sixteen trade-friendly House members and six trade-friendly Senators are leaving to be replaced by trade skeptics. In a closely divided Congress where trade skepticism is already a potent force, this reconfiguration will not only color the debate and the vote count, it will reshape the very ground upon which the debate occurs.
       Even the early signs are a little disquieting.
       The new Congress had not even started when the "old" Congress – fresh from a bruising election day – stunned all of Washington by rejecting the Vietnam normal trade relations bill on the eve of the President’s trip to Hanoi.
       The press and pundits made much of this. The New York Times likened it to a "lightning bolt that illuminates a dark landscape" and grimly predicted in its headline: Trade Bills Now Face Tough Odds.
       In reality, the Vietnam vote probably said less about the new order and more about the frustrations of returning members of the old Congress. The timing of the vote [the first day back after the election] and the procedure [the expedited "suspension calendar" mechanism with limited debate] smacked of insensitivity and heavy-handedness on the part of House Republican leaders so soon after the voters had slammed the party for this very style of leadership. As a result, a higher than usual number of Republicans voted against the Vietnam bill, along with the usual number of Democrats – enough to deny the bill the necessary two-thirds margin needed for this expedited procedure. It should also be noted that most of the new Democratic leaders voted for the bill.
       Yet, while the significance of the Vietnam vote may have been overplayed, it nevertheless remains as a stern reminder that we are in fact entering a new era for trade – where the virtues of free and open trade may no longer be a given. Trade skepticism seems likely to translate into a new "fair trade" mantra. The concept is not new, of course, but rather than resting on the margins of the debate, it may now become the foundation of trade policy and politics.
       The real danger is not that the bipartisan alignment that for decades has facilitated a broad free trade agenda will disappear. The more alarming prospect is that it will be replaced by a new bipartisan marriage between and among old-style liberal Democrats who have always been skeptical about trade, conservative Republicans worried about human rights abuse in communist countries, America-first Republicans who want to teach ungrateful countries a lesson when they thumb their noses at the US, and finally the new populist Democrats with an innate distrust of globalism and a mission to give American workers a fairer shake. This kind of realignment would give a Democratic-led fair trade agenda real teeth. And, if allowed to solidify and harden, could seriously undermine future free trade initiatives.
       But we are not there yet and we may never get there. Open trade is woven into the fabric of our economy and our society and that cannot be easily undone. And, hopefully, the Democratic trade leaders will remain steadfast in their support of free trade while satisfying their party’s thirst for stronger trade law enforcement, attention to labor and environmental issues and a response to the needs of American workers.
       Fortunately, perhaps, there are not a great number of groundbreaking do-or-die trade issues on the immediate horizon. Peru, of course, was due to be considered in 2006, but got lost in the end-of-the-year chaos.
       Democratic leaders in the House have made it clear: the labor provisions of the agreement will have to be re-negotiated before it will be considered by Congress. The Colombia FTA may face a similar fate.
       A big question will be whether Congress is willing to extend the President’s Trade Promotion Authority when it expires in mid- 2007. If Democrats decide to renew the TPA, it will likely be for a narrow purpose, such as to complete the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement or the Doha Round (should it be revived). And it will no doubt come with a beefed up set of conditions relating to labor and the environment.
       As for the less high-profile issues, such as renewal of GSP or preferences for the Andean region and sub-Saharan Africa, they may actually do better in the 110th Congress. Ironically, Rep. Rangel has been a leader in advocating prompt renewal of these programs, showing a keen sensitivity to both the needs of business and the overseas beneficiaries of these programs – in sharp contrast to the resistance of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who wants to sharply curtail GSP and Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA), who has offered less drastic, but nevertheless highly restrictive changes to the program.
       More problematical, there will be no shortage of "feel-good" provisions offered here and there – measures that sound good in principle but are highly dangerous because of their complete disregard for the complexities of trade. Already we see this happening: a recent Democratic amendment requiring importers to certify that each imported product was not made in whole or in part with slave, indentured or coerced labor. This will not be the last we hear of this and others like it.
       Change is here.
       And we are ready.

       Antitrust Modernization Commission Hearing
               On October 18, I represented the NCBFAA before the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC). The AMC was created in 2002 as a part of the Department of Justice Authorization Act, and was intended to study the nation’s antitrust laws in order to see what changes, if any, should be made in view of the various changes that had occurred in the economy over the past 100 years. Among the topics being studied were those statutes that conferred antitrust immunity on companies and, of course, one of the preeminent laws in that regard is the Shipping Act.
       It is worth noting at the outset that Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who had attempted to eliminate carrier immunity under the Shipping Act in several attempts over the past 6 years, sponsored the law, which created the AMC. The NCBFAA had actively supported those efforts.
       The AMC consists of 12 Commissioners, each of whom are practicing antitrust lawyers, appointed by the President and the House and Senate. Over the past several years, the AMC has sought and obtained views concerning this topic from a variety of sources and now has turned its focus specifically at the antitrust immunity provisions that exist in a number of laws.
       With respect to the Shipping Act, the AMC invited various industry spokespersons to submit written statements concerning their views. The NCBFAA was requested to do so and the Association accordingly submitted a detailed statement on the issue to the AMC.
       (A Copy of the NCBFAA’s statement has been posted on FABnet.) And, as the NIT League originally declined to participate, the NCBFAA was the only organization representing forwarder, NVOCC or shipper interests that appeared before the AMC to present its views about the effects of carrier antitrust immunity on the trade.
       With respect to the hearing, the following organizations testified in support of the their respective views.
       The defenders of the status quo (i.e., continued antitrust immunity) were the World Shipping Council, which represents the carriers, the American Association of Port Authorities, and Chairman Blust speaking for the FMC. Opposed to any continuation of immunity, besides the NCBFAA, was Ms.
       Fabrizia Benini representing the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission (which recently eliminated the block immunity for shipping conferences), the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, the Justice Department, and the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference (which represents the truckers used by the lines for drayage and intermodal trucking operations).
       During the hearing, the Commissioners made it clear that they were not impressed generally with the notion that antitrust immunity was either beneficial to the economy or otherwise justified. On numerous occasions, they cited the statement submitted by the NCBFAA of the types of collective activity to which NVOCCs and shippers were subject as clear abuses of the antitrust laws. Using the examples of abuses that the NCBFAA had singled out for mention in its statement (the TSA service contracting abuses that led to the FMC’s investigation several years ago, the problem with the collective assessment of surcharges that were not cost justified, collective decisions on free time and demurrage and detention rules), the AMC Commissioners repeatedly pressed counsel for the carriers and the Chairman of the FMC to justify why any continuation of the current system was necessary or appropriate. The carriers’ counsel had little to offer beyond repeatedly stating that Congress had recently looked at the issue during OSRA (so that there was no need to revisit the issue now), that things were working well at present, that were was ample competition, that service contracts and the right of independent action effectively minimized undue carrier influence, and "if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it." The AMC Commissioners did not appear to be impressed.
       FMC Chairman Blust was asked to justify the current system, to explain how commerce benefited from any continuation of antitrust immunity for carriers, or what changes he or the Commission would wish to make. He was also asked to explain how the Commission was able to use its monitoring authority to actually correct trade abuses. Again, the AMC Commissioners did not appear to be persuaded that the FMC was able to effectively monitor or otherwise control inappropriate collective action of the carriers. It is also worth noting here that FMC Commissioner Brennan submitted a separate statement, opining that it was time to eliminate antitrust immunity.
       The witness from the EC, Ms. Benini, explained how and why the EC had taken the steps to eliminate the block exemption from the European antitrust (or competition) laws that has in the past permitted shipping conferences to fix rates. She made it clear that the EU saw no benefit or need to continue that system, that the EU would under no circumstance permit or immunize discussion agreements, but that it would allow space sharing agreements to continue. Similarly, the witness from the ABA Antitrust Section presented an economic and legal challenge to the rationale underlying any grant of immunity from the antitrust laws.
       In his testimony and in response to questions from the AMC Commissioners, NCBFAA counsel stated that the carrier abuses of NVOCCs take place under the Commission’s radar screen, that NVOs are often the victims of carrier collusive activity, and that the real victims of course are the underlying shippers who lack the economic leverage to avoid the pricing and service decisions of the carriers.
       But NCBFAA counsel also pointed out that the FMC’s authority and budget/manpower was grossly inadequate to police this issue, so that if immunity for the carriers was to be continued there should be substantial changes in the statute and more authority for the FMC. Nonetheless, in the absence of such a change, the NCBFAA argued that the antitrust immunity enjoyed by the steamship lines should be eliminated and urged the AMC to support this when it issues it report to Congress.
       In addition, it is worth noting that during the hearing NIT League’s counsel advised that they no longer believed there was a case to be made for any continuation of immunity for the carriers and they had just submitted a report to the AMC indicating that they too were opposed to continuation of immunity.
       The statements of the participants as well as a transcript of the hearing can be obtained from the AMC’s website, www.amc.gov.
       NCBFAA Comments on Use of Agents
       In August of this year, the FMC initiated a proceeding to determine the extent to which it was lawful for licensed NVOCCs and ocean forwarders to work with agents that were not separately licensed. This proceeding initiated at the request of an NVOCC called Team Ocean Services, Inc., and was assigned Docket No. 06-08, In the Matter of the Lawfulness of Unlicensed Persons Acting as Agents for Licensed Ocean Transportation Intermediaries. Because of the importance of this issue to NVOCCs and forwarders, the NCBFAA decided to participate and file comments.
       In its comments, the NCBFAA pointed out that licensed NVOCCs rely heavily upon services provided by agents, and that these range from acting as receiving agents to providing services as warehouses, truckers, consolidators, container lessors, etc. With that background in mind, the Association pointed out that the FMC had not promulgated regulations requiring licensed NVOCCs to use only licensed agents in providing services to their shippers. This of course is in contrast to the situation involving overseas NVOCCs that are not licensed, who are required to work with licensed ocean transportation intermediaries (OTIs) in the United States.
       The NCBFAA accordingly argued that since licensed NVOCCs already have bonds in place to protect the public, there was no valid public purpose militating in favor of requiring that their agents also be licensed and bonded. In addition, the Association explained that it would be a logistical nightmare for NVOCCs to work only with licensed agents, as (1) there are so many different agency relationships involved, (2) that the identity of agents change frequently and (3) those agents would often not be able to qualify for licenses.
       The Association also argued that although it may be prudent for NVOCCs to have written agreements with certain of their agents, that is a private matter and the FMC should not either require any written documentation or prescribe the contents of those agreements.
       The NCBFAA did point out, however, that the situation was very different for ocean forwarders. In that regard, the Commission’s existing regulations clearly state that the only legitimate agency relationships that forwarders can have are with bona fide sales agents.
       Thus, the Association explained that since the law was quite clear on the topic, the FMC should not issue a ruling contradicting the regulations, so that forwarders should continue to operate in the future as they currently function.

      CIT Clarifies when Prior "Treatment" Will Be Binding on Customs*
               Importers and brokers often assume that the consistent classification, valuation or other tariff treatment of an imported item gives rise to certain "rights" which will preclude Customs and Border Protection (hereinafter "Customs") from changing the tariff treatment of the imported item without giving the importer prior notice of its intent to do so.
       However, as illustrated by the court’s recent decision in Motorola v. United States, Slip op.
       06-165 (C.I.T. Nov. 13, 2006) ("Motorola III"), Customs’ benign acceptance of an importer’s assertions with does not necessarily protect the importer from a sudden, and possibly retroactive, interpretative change.
       Motorola III involved a situation where the importer followed Customs’ written pre-classification advice and classified its imported circuits under a duty free provision without incident for four years. Local Customs subsequently determined that a different classification was more appropriate and liquidated the entries for additional duties. When Headquarters ultimately agreed with the port, the importer argued that the circuits had been subject to a "treatment" and sought to limit the application of that decision to prospective transactions. Despite an extended and consistent history of classifying and liquidating the circuits under the duty free provision, the court in Motorola III found that Customs’ actions did not give rise to a "treatment." As a result, the agency was not estopped from reclassifying the goods and liquidating the entries for additional duties.
       Statutory and regulatory Framework With the enactment of the "Customs Modernization Act of 1993",1 Congress created a mandatory notice and comment requirement for Customs where (1) the agency intends to issue a decision which modifies or revokes an existing ruling or (2) has the effect of modifying or revoking an existing treatment previously afforded to substantially identical transactions. Prior to the enactment of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c), there was no statutory requirement for Customs to issue advance notice of its intent to change the tariff treatment of imported merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) was designed by Congress to act as a procedural safeguard for importers, exporters, and other interested parties.2 19 U.S.C. 1625 § provides, inter alia: (c) Modification and revocation A proposed interpretive ruling or decision which would— (1) modify (other than to correct a clerical error) or revoke a prior interpretive ruling or decision which has been in effect for at least 60 days; or (2) have the effect of modifying the treatment previously accorded by the Customs Service to substantially identical transactions; shall be published in the Customs Bulletin.
       The Secretary shall give interested parties an opportunity to submit, during not less than the 30-day period after the date of such publication, comments on the correctness of the proposed ruling or decision. After consideration of any comments received, the Secretary shall publish a final ruling or deci- sion in the Customs Bulletin within 30 days after the closing of the comment period. The final ruling or decision shall become effective 60 days after the date of its publication.
       To implement the statute, 19 CFR § 177.12(c) provides as follows: Treatment previously accorded to substantially identical transactions—(1) General.
       The issuance of an interpretive ruling that has the effect of modifying or revoking the treatment previously accorded by Customs to substantially identical transactions must be in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The following rules will apply for purposes of determining under this section whether a treatment was previously accorded by Customs to substantially identical transactions of a person: There must be evidence to establish that: There was an actual determination by a Customs officer regarding the facts and issues involved in the claimed treatment; The Customs officer making the actual determination was responsible for the subject matter on which the determination was made; and Over a 2-year period immediately preceding the claim of treatment, Customs consistently applied that determination on a national basis as reflected in liquidation of entries or reconciliations or other Customs actions with respect to all or substantially all of that person’s Customs transactions involving materially identical facts and issues; Accordingly, Customs is required to publish for notice and comment any interpretive ruling or decision, which effectively modifies a "treatment", previously accorded by Customs to "substantially identical transactions." The Regulation goes on to provide, in relevant part: ii) The determination of whether the requisite treatment occurred will be made by Customs on a case-by-case basis and will involve an assessment of all relevant factors. In particular, Customs will focus on the past transactions to determine whether there was an examination of the merchandise . . . by Customs or the extent to which those transactions were otherwise reviewed by Customs to determine the proper application of the Customs laws and regulations. For purposes of establishing whether the requisite treatment occurred, Customs will give diminished weight to transactions involving small quantities or values, and Customs will give no weight whatsoever to informal entries and to other entries or transactions which Customs, in the interest of commercial facilitation and accommodation, processes expeditiously and without examination or Customs officer review[.]3 In order to establish the existence of a "treatment," the person claiming the treatment bears the burden of producing evidence including a list detailing: • all materially identical transactions by entry number; • the quantity and value of merchandise covered by each transaction; • the ports of entry; • the dates of final action by Customs; and • if known, the name and location of the Customs officer who made the determination on which the claimed treatment is based.4 In 2002, Customs promulgated 19 CFR § 177.12(c)(1)(iii), seeking to narrowly construe the "treatment" provision of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) and to define the term "substantially identical transactions" as including only the transactions of the entity alleging entitlement to 1625(c)’s notice and comment process. In California Industrial Products, Inc. v United States, 436 F.3d 1341, (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Customs’ highly restrictive interpretation and stated that "[a]lthough section 1625 does not define ‘substantially identical transactions,’ the language of the statute indicates that Congress clearly intended transactions between Customs and multiple parties to be ‘substantially identical transactions.’" 5 ‘Substantially identical transactions’ in 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) is therefore defined to include transactions of parties other than the person claiming entitlement to the statute’s notice and comment process.6 Contrary to the agency’s efforts to limit the application of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c), the California Industrial Products decision seemed to suggest that this procedural safeguard would be broadly construed.
       Neither 19 U.S.C. § 1625 nor its legislative history define the term "treatment." In Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 116 F.Supp.2d. 1350, 1376 (C.I.T.
       2000), the Court of International Trade ("CIT") found that the term "treatment" denotes a consistent pattern of actions by Customs and allows importers to order their behavior based on these prior actions.7 The Court held that "importers may order their actions based not only on Customs’ formal policy, ‘position,’ ‘ruling,’ or ‘decision,’ but on its prior actions."8 Thus, "treatment" refers to the actions of Customs, rather than its "position" or policy.9 It follows, therefore, that it must be determined: "(1) whether there was an examination of the entries; or (2) the extent to which the entries were otherwise reviewed to determine the proper application of the Customs laws and regulations."10 In Motorola III, the CIT reasoned that "[w]hether the review or examination constitutes a treatment…is a matter of degree" and "the analysis of whether treatment has occurred, therefore, is both qualitative and quantitative."11 Motorola iii Defines the Level of Customs review required to establish a "treatment" In Motorola III, the importer had been classifying its imported circuits under a duty free tariff provision for several years. When Customs determined that another tariff provision was more appropriate, the importer argued that the new tariff treatment should only be applied prospectively. The CIT ruled against Motorola finding that Customs had not taken sufficient action on the importer’s entries to give rise to a treatment and that Customs was not required to follow the notice and comment procedures under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2) before changing the classification of the imported merchandise.
       In 1992 and 1994, Customs performed pre-classification line reviews and issued two preliminary ruling letters ("PRLs") to Motorola. In both letters, Customs classified the items under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") subheading 8542.20.00 (the predecessor to subheading 8542.40.00). Between 1995 and 1997, Motorola filed more than 900 entries of circuits and classified the merchandise under subheading 8542.40.00. The 900 entries were cleared under the bypass procedure and the majority of theses entries were liquidated duty free under subheading 8542.40.00.
       In 1996, local Customs rejected the prior classification and began to liquidate the circuits under subheading 8536.30.80 at a duty rate of 3.2 percent ad valorem. Motorola protested this decision and Headquarters issued Ruling Letter ("HRL") 961050 upholding the port’s classification determination. Motorola took the position that HRL 961050 was an "interpretative ruling or decision that would have the effect of modifying the treatment previously accorded by the Customs Service to (its) substantially identical merchandise." (In prior litigation, the CIT held that although the PRLs qualified as interpretative rulings,

       HRL 961050 did not modify or revoke those prior rulings.12) Accordingly, Motorola argued that by issuing two PRLs and consistently liquidating several hundred entries under the duty free tariff provision, Customs had established a "treatment" that could only be modified after Customs followed the notice and comment provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c). The issue framed by the court in Motorola III was "whether there [was a] sufficient examination or review by Customs."13 When the entries at issue in Motorola III were filed, Customs was utilizing a "manual bypass" procedure whereby entries were segregated for review at the filing stage, prior to import specialist review. During this process, the entry summary data was compared to a master checklist to ensure that all the required data elements were present. Approximately 2 to 10 percent of the entries routed through bypass were then subject to random review. Once an entry was deemed eligible for bypass, it underwent immediate liquidation processing.14 The CIT determined that the level of entry review afforded under the bypass procedure did not rise to the level required to establish a "treatment" under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c).
       The Court was not convinced that "simply because Customs randomly reviews a small percentage of entries, such random review is of a degree sufficient enough to constitute treatment."15 To the Court, "ensuring the appearance of a tariff provision on a Customs form does not constitute a review sufficient for classification purposes."16 Accordingly, the Court ruled against the importer and held that no "treatment" had been established with regard to the classification Motorola’s imported circuits.
       Conclusion
       While 19 U.S.C. § 1625 was enacted to provide importers with advance notice of interpretative changes and the opportunity to comment on those potential changes, the actual coverage of this provision is not as broad as it appears. Although Customs is clearly bound by statute to publish notice of its intent to issue a ruling which will modify or revoke a prior interpretative ruling, the Motorola III decision suggests that absent written conflicting interpretative rulings, there will be few circumstances where importers can rely on historic conduct to avoid sudden, and possibly retroactive, tariff changes.
       Indeed, the Court’s definition of what constitutes an "examination of the merchandise" by Customs may prove to be an impossibly difficult burden for importers to overcome in an increasingly electronic environment where fewer and fewer entries are actually subject to review by Customs.
       The Motorola III decision demonstrates that the repetitive entry of substantially identical merchandise over an extended period of time does not guarantee the continuation of that situation or afford the importer any procedural protections. To avail itself of the notice and comment benefits of 19 U.S.C. § 1625, the importer must be able to establish that there was a cognitive, intentional review of the entries by Customs as opposed to a ministerial processing of the entry documentation.
       Whereas the decision in California Industrial Products seemed to suggest a broader interpretation of the "treatment" concept, the decision in Motorola III is a definite step in the opposite direction.
       *Ellen Dano assisted in the preparation of this column.
       Footnotes 1. Pub. L. No. 103-182, § 623 (1993).
       2. See H.R. Rep. No. 103-361, 1st Sess.
       (1993).
       3. 19 CFR § 177.12(c)(1)(ii).
       4. 19 C.F.R. 177.12 (c)(1)(iv).
       5. California Industrial, 436 F.3d at 1353.
       6. California Industrial, 436 F.3d at 1356 7. Id. at 1377.
       8. Id.
       9. Id.. at 1377.
       10. Motorola III, No. 06-165, at 12.
       11. Id. See also Motorola II, 436 F.3d at 1365.
       12. 8 CIT ___, 350 F. Supp 2d 1057 (2004).
       13. Motorola III, No. 06-165 at 14.
       The CIT also held that issuance of the PRLs did not constitute an examination or review amounting to "treatment" for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(2). As noted above, the Court found that a PRL is a prior interpretive ruling governed by (c)(1) of § 1625 and therefore not within (c)(2).
       14. See, Customs Directive 3550-26, dated 9/8/87.
       15. Id at 22.
       16. Id. at 23.
       Alan R. Klestadt Named NCBFAA Customs Counsel
       The NCBFAA recently appointed Alan R. Klestadt, a partner in the law firm of Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP as Customs Counsel for the Association. Grunfeld, Desiderio et al, is one of the nation’s largest law firms devoted exclusively to international trade and Customs matters.
       "My father [Lothar Klestadt] was an ardent supporter of the NCBFAA and I have been around the customs brokerage and freight forwarding industry my entire life," Mr. Klestadt noted. "I am deeply connected to the brokerage community, on both a personal and professional level, and I am truly honored by the opportunity to serve as Customs Counsel to the NCBFAA." Announcement of Mr. Klestadt’s selection was delayed by the unexpected death on October 16 of his predecessor Harvey Isaacs, who had served as the Association’s General and Customs Counsel for more than 30 years and whose retirement from that post last summer precipitated a threemonth search for his successor.
       "Harvey was a committed professional whose contributions to the NCBFAA helped to make it the strong industry voice that it is today," he said. "I am excited to have been chosen to continue his legacy of service and devotion to the Association and to its members." As Customs Counsel, Mr. Klestadt will advise the NCBFAA management team on customs issues and regulatory matters as well as support the deliberations of the NCBFAA Customs Committee and Board of Directors. Mr. Klestadt is eminently quali- fied for his new role having been admitted to the New York bar in 1984; to the U.S. Court of International Trade in 1988; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1989.
       He earned his BA at New York University in 1980 and received his JD degree from Hofstra University in 1983. Mr. Klestadt was also a Staff Member with the International Property Investment Journal from 1982-1983.
       A member of the New York State and American Bar Associations as well as the Customs and International Trade Bar Association, Mr. Klestadt is a Licensed Customs Broker and has served as an instructor at New York University where he taught various customs courses including Customhouse Brokerage for License Applicants, Customs Law Survey: "Minimizing Customs Duties," and the Customs Law Survey: "Making The Law Work For You." His practice areas include Customs Law, NAFTA, and International Trade Regulation.

       Industry Continuing Education Is Fast Becoming A Business Necessity
              Industry Continuing Education Is Fast Becoming A Business Necessity
       Although I majored in secondary education, my first student made me painfully aware that I was ill prepared for the classroom. My first teaching assignment was at a four-year college. I found students in composition who had reading problems as well as difficulty writing a coherent essay. This first experience occurred long before national legislation to address the needs of all students. I thought a master’s degree in English would solve the problem. I quickly enrolled in a program, earned my degree, and still found myself without the skills I believed were necessary for the job. I quickly earned a second degree in reading with a concentration in language-learning disabilities. Now, I had some knowledge that could translate into effective teaching strategies in the classroom. I also realized that I didn’t know everything there was to know.
       Over the years, with the help of grants, attendance at conferences, and enrollment in courses, I continued to keep my skills updated while adding new ones. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve not only as an instructor but also as an administrator, consultant, and editor. If I did not avail myself of these opportunities, I surely would have stagnated as a teacher and never aspired to become an educator.
       The Association has in many ways fostered continuing education. For any number of years, the NCBFAA has offered courses of one kind or another. Dedicated volunteers gave unselfishly of their time to assist others in learning about the intricacies of the profession. Education committees existed at one point or another, but only until recently has there been a concerted effort to formalize and reconstitute the Association’s Educational Institute. The need was apparent and time was right for such actions.
       The goal of our current Certified Customs Specialist course and our forthcoming Certified Transportation Specialist class is to create competent technicians who have a high degree of knowledge about the customs and forwarding industries specifically. If all the knowledge could be crammed in one course, we would boast a very knowledgeable workforce. In a very dynamic profession with industry standards being created and changed rapidly, the need to update, remain abreast, and keep current is paramount.
       Consequently, the NCBFAA Educational Institute, the NEI, demands continued professional development for each CCSpecialist to have his or her certification endorsed on an ongoing basis. The continuing education program that begins January 2007, attempts to meet the needs of CCSpecialists at all levels of experience.
       The program allows each CCSpecialist to accumulate 20 generic continuing education points from a portfolio of events that include college level courses to in-service activities offered by a Specialist’s company. Events must be endorsed by the NEI beforehand.
       If the Portfolio of Events does not address the level of expertise of a CCSpecialist, he or she can create his or her own professional development plan. As more and more events are added to our Portfolio, we envision creating tracks, similar to majors, in various topics. And we expect that the day will come when the need for an Advanced Specialist category is warranted.
       Several NEI-endorsed opportunities will be offered free of charge as part of the Institute’s commitment to keeping costs as low as possible. These events will take the form of webinars, case studies, and interactive quizzes on topics that pertain to current issues affecting the customs industry.
       In soliciting events for our online portfolio, we depend on CCSpecialists to help us seed the collection of acceptable offerings. CCSpecialists, training directors, and members are encouraged to alert the NEI to items that should be included in the Portfolio of Events. The selection should include a variety of offerings since we not only have a wide range of experience levels of but also types of activities.
       All of us realize the need to stay current; and, accordingly we seek to create a continuing education program that distinguishes the CCSpecialist as a valuable member of the customs profession.

              Advertise in the 2007 NCBFAA Annual Membership Directory for just $200, which is less than 13 percent the cost of a full-page ad. That’s right! For $200, you can have your black & white business-card sized (3½ x 2 inches) ad located at or near your free listing in the Directory.
       Your business card will draw the attention of those using the book to find a service provider.
       • Since most business cards include a logo, your brand gets before the trading community inexpensively and effectively.
       • With card ads, you can send potential clients to contacts directly responsible for customs, forwarding, warehousing, drawback, etc.
       • Exposure to the trade community at major expositions around the country means you will enjoy maximum impact for your advertising dollar.
       • With a shelf life of at least a year, the Directory is the major reference publication of importers, exporters, forwarders, brokers, airlines, steamship lines and federal agencies.
       • Your ad will serve to identify your company with an Association that continually promotes professionalism.
       Submit the order form /files/FileDownloads/bcorderform.htm, no later than January 31, to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity to promote your firm and help your Association by purchasing one of these terrific ad placements! Rates for larger ads can be seen here. /files/FileDownloads/adcost.htm

CBP has published minimum C-TPAT security criteria for brokers. This is the first time that CBP has published broker specific expectations within the C-TPAT program. The criteria, which were developed with substantial input from the NCBFAA Customs Committee, recognize that brokers do not physically control the freight but nevertheless have access to a great deal of valuable and relevant security information. C-TPAT participants are required to develop and maintain documented security procedures and to provide their importer-clients with information regarding the C-TPAT program. Members are encouraged to access the document at the CBP website under the section addressing the C-TPAT program and to review their existing C-TPAT procedures to make sure that they are consistent with this new document.
During the formulation and vetting of these standards, the NCBFAA through the auspices of its Customs Committee endeavored during consistent communication with CBP and DHS personnel to ensure that the resulting process would not be unduly burdensome.

       To facilitate the development of regulations regarding advance security filings pursuant to section 203 of the SAFE Port Act, CBP invites interested persons to comment on the following draft paper by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this document. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the draft proposal, explaining the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. CBP is specifically interested in receiving comments on this proposal relating to the following:
       • The advance trade data elements.
       • The parties most likely to have direct knowledge of each element.
       • The technology necessary for parties to transmit the data in a timely fashion.
       • The impact on the flow of commerce, including explanations of the existing commercial practices of affected parties and the changes to those practices that would be necessary in order to comply with the requirements proposed in this document.
       • The necessity for transition periods between promulgation of the regulations and the effective date of the regulations. Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2007. Comments must be emailed to security- filingstrawman@dhs.gov
       Background
       U.S. Customs and Border Protection operates at the nexus of national security and American economic security. Designing approaches to ensure that U.S. Customs and Border Protection contributes fully to these imperatives is critical to fulfilling the agency’s mission to secure the nation’s borders and to facilitate the free flow of international trade. Finding the right equilibrium is a challenge that requires CBP to consistently monitor and evaluate the processes and systems the agency employs to screen and clear the millions of import ocean cargo containers and millions of entries that cross our ports of entry every year.
       In this environment Congress recognized the need for more robust security targeting and recently passed the SAFE Port Act. The SAFE Port Act sets forth the following requirement to enhance the capability of CBP’s Automated Targeting System:
       "Section 203(b): Requirement. – The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall require the electronic transmission to the Department of additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate elements of entry data … to be provided as advanced information with respect to cargo destined for importation into the United States prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign ports."
       Prior to enactment of the SAFE Port Act CBP had already undertaken an internal review of its targeting and inspection processes in recognition that physically examining every cargo container entering the United States would impose an unacceptable cost on the American economy. Consequently, CBP had implemented a comprehensive strategy designed to enhance national security while protecting the economic vitality of the United States. The Container Security Initiative (CSI), the 24-Hour Rule, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) are cornerstone approaches implemented to further this goal. Additionally, CBP has developed cargo risk assessment capabilities in its Automated Targeting System (ATS) to screen all maritime containers before they are loaded aboard vessels in foreign ports. Each of the initiatives is dependent upon data supplied by trade entities, including carriers, non-vessel operating common carriers, brokers, importers or their agents.
       The information that CBP currently analyzes to generate its risk assessment prior to vessel loading contains the same data elements that were originally established by the 24 Hour Rule. For the most part, this is the ocean carrier’s or non-vessel operator’s cargo declaration. While this was a sound initial approach to take after the tragic events of September 11th; internal and external government reviews have concluded that more complete advance shipment data would produce more effective and more vigorous cargo risk assessments.
       In late 2004, the Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection (COAC) forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security and CBP one of its subcommittees’ recommendations, which provided that: "For ATS to provide enhanced security screening, the system should acquire additional shipment data to be used in the pre-vessel loading security screening process." COAC recommended that CBP undertake a thorough review of the data element recommendations with the Trade Support Network to determine what data elements the government required to improve the agency’s risk assessment and targeting capabilities.
       Accordingly, CBP undertook further internal review and analysis of its targeting and inspection processes and worked with the Trade Support Network on this issue. CBP convened a group of its senior level field targeting experts to review existing screening and examination procedures, and to evaluate the information requirements necessary to ensure the foundation of the agency’s targeting efforts. The group met over several months to make recommendations on data elements required prior to vessel lading, the processes and procedures utilized to screen and examine cargo, and the infrastructure that supports the ATS. The task force reviewed thousands of data elements for potential value as targeting keys, evaluated current targeting approaches, and recommended areas for improvement.
       Based upon its analysis, CBP offers for the trade’s consideration the following draft proposal to be used as a strawman to facilitate the development of regulations, in consultation with the trade community as provided by the new statutory mandate under the SAFE Port Act. In keeping with the parameters of the Trade Act of 2002, the additional data elements requested under this proposal will be used for security and enhanced targeting and are not intended for commercial or trade enforcement purposes.
       CBP will post this document to the Customs and Border Protection website and will provide guidance on how to direct your comments on the proposal to the agency as the process moves forward.
       Security Filing: Proposed Data requirements
       A. In addition to the current data elements specified under the 24-Hour Rule (19 CFR 4.7(a)), CBP proposes to require an additional set of data elements 24 hours prior to vessel loading. These data elements will be linked, via the Automated Manifest System (AMS) or Automated Broker Interface (ABI) to the existing 24 Hour Rule data collected in the AMS. This new Security Filing (SF) is focused on those specific data elements that further identify the entities involved in the supply chain, the entities’ locations, as well as a corroborating and potentially more precise description of the commodities being shipped to the United States. This data will significantly enhance the risk assessment process by enabling CBP to more efficiently separate higher-risk shipments from lowerrisk shipments that should be afforded more rapid release decisions. In addition, these additional data elements will enable CBP to make critical decisions during and immediately after elevated alert levels when business resumption is essential to the well being and security of the U.S. economy.
       For maritime cargo that is destined to remain in the U.S. the data elements listed below will be required to be transmitted 24 hours prior to loading the U.S. bound vessel. As further described in Section III, this portion of the Security Filing will be required to be transmitted by the importer or its designated agent.
       The following ten (10) data elements were selected because of their probative value and because of their ready availability in current logistics processes. (See Annex A for proposed definitions of the data elements.)
       1. Manufacturer name and address
       2. Seller name and address
       3. Container stuffing location
       4. Consolidator name and address
       5. Buyer name and address 6. Ship to name and address
       7. Importer of record number
       8. Consignee number
       9. Country of origin of the goods
       10. Commodity Harmonized Tariff Schedule number (6 digit)
       In addition to the data elements outlined above, CBP will require ocean carriers to provide two additional data sets to complete the security filing:
       • Vessel Stow Plan
       • Container Status Messages
       The vessel stow plan is used to transmit information about containers loaded aboard a vessel. The CBP proposal will require the vessel stow plan, no later than, 48 hours after the departure from the last port foreign. For voyages less than 48 hours in duration, the vessel stow plan must be transmitted to CBP prior to arrival of the vessel at the first U.S. port.
       Vessel Stow Plan information consists of:
       • Vessel Name (IMO number)
       • Vessel Operator
       • Voyage number
       • Container Operator
       • Equipment Number
       • Equipment size/type
       • Stow position
       • Hazmat-UN Code
       • Vessel Location –load/discharge ports
       Container status messages serve to facilitate the intermodal handling of containers by streamlining the information exchange between trading partners involved in administration, commerce and transport of containerized shipments. The messages can also be used to report terminal container movements (e.g. loading and discharging the vessel) and to report the change in status of containers (e.g. empty or full). The container status messages data elements will provide CBP with additional transparency into the custodial environment through which inter-modal containers are handled and transported before arrival and after unlading in the U.S. This enhanced view (corroboration with other advanced data messages) into the international supply chain will contribute to the security of the U.S. and in the international supply chain through which containers and import cargos reach U.S. ports.
       The CBP proposal, currently undergoing further review, is focused on the following data elements of the existing container status messaging set.
       • Equipment Number
       • Event • Event Date and Time
       • Event Location
       • Vessel
       iii. Security Filing: Responsible Parties
       In developing regulations pursuant to the SAFE Port Act, CBP is required to follow the parameters of the Trade Act of 2002. The Trade Act of 2002 states that "the requirement to provide particular information shall be imposed on the party most likely to have direct knowledge of that information." (19 U.S.C. 2071 Note (a)(3)(B))..
       In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act cited above and based upon the internal and external discussions to date, CBP believes that the importer (or its designated agent) is the party most likely to have direct knowledge of the ten data elements of the Security Filing data. CBP has determined that the ocean carrier is the most likely party to have direct knowledge of the vessel stow plan and container status messages which complete the security filing.
       In order to receive the Security Filing data, CBP will utilize existing modules of the Automated Commercial System (ACS): the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) and the Automated Manifest System (AMS). CBP proposes that current authorized transmitting entities for these modules (i.e. ABI filers and AMS participants) may transmit the Security Filing data. CBP is committed to integrating this data submission process with the future ongoing developmental work and implementation of the ACE.
       Because of the similarity of the ten data elements of the Security Filing and entry data, importers may be interested in fulfilling both Security Filing and entry obligations at the same time by filing 24 hours before vessel loading. CBP will consider any comments in this regard within the context of existing statutory schemes and technological capacity.
       Annex A: Proposed Data Definitions Manufacturer/Supplier name/ Manufacturer/Supplier Address Manufacturer/Producer/Grower/: Name and Address
       The name and address of the entity that last manufactures, produces, or grows the imported commodity. These entities produce or grow raw materials that are shipped to the United States or transform raw materials into a finished product or article that is shipped to the United States. The transformation of the raw material may involve processing into finished goods, or the production of goods to be further assembled to create a finished product, or the assembly of goods into a finished product.
       Seller name/ Seller Address
       The last named overseas (foreign) sellers/ addresses on the transaction invoice/purchase order.
       Buyer name/Buyer Address
       The last named buyer and address 24 hours prior to foreign lading.
       Ship to name and Address
       The named party and the address on the transaction that will physically receive the merchandise, which may be different from the consignee (e.g. de-consolidator warehouse)
       Container Stuffing Location
       The physical foreign location street, city, country,) where the goods were stuffed into the container prior to the closing of the container.
       Consolidator name and Address (if applicable)
       Foreign receiving party that physically stuffs the container prior to receipt by carrier for shipment to the US. The consolidator’s address identifies the physical location of cargo, which may differ from the usual manufacturer or shipper premises. Typically, this is a fixed location.
       Importer (of record number)
       The unique identifying number of the entity primarily responsible for the payment of any duties on the merchandise, or an authorized agent acting on his behalf. The importer may be any one of the parties noted below:
       • The consignee
       • The importer of record
       • The actual owner of the merchandise
       • The transferee of the merchandise
       For any of the above named parties, the unique identifying number can be the IRS, EIN, SSN, or the CBP assigned number, is required on the Security Filing.
       Consignee (number)
       The unique identifying number of the entity to which the goods are to be consigned. Typically, the consignee is the "deliver to" party at the end of the supply chain who has a fiduciary interest in the cargo. This is normally the party defined at the house bill level.
       For of the above named party, the unique identifying number can be the IRS, EIN, SSN, or the CBP assigned number, is required on the Security Filing.
Country of Origin
       The country of origin of a good is the country in which the good is wholly obtained or produced, as defined in CFR 19 102.11, Subpart B – Rules of Origin.
       Commodity 6-Digit HTS
       Indicates the initial classification required of a shipment prior to entry being filed.
       Provides specific HTS identification of the commodity being ordered from the purchase order.
       Annex B – Data elements Comparison
       Current Required Manifest Data Security Filing Data Entry Data

Bill of Lading Number	Manufacturer/Shipper name/address	Entry Number/Type
Foreign Port prior to Depart to U.S.	Seller name/address	Entry – Port/Entry
Carrier SCAC	Container Stuffing Location	Filer Code
Carrier Assigned Voyage Number	Buyer name/address	Importer of Record
Date of Arrival at First U.S. Port	Ship to name/address	Ultimate Consignee
U.S. Port of Unlading	Importer of Record Number	Surety Number
Quantity	Consignee Number	Filing Date & Time
Unit Measure of Quantity	Country of Origin	Importing Carrier
First Foreign Place of Receipt	Commodity HTS-6	Vessel Name
Commodity Description (HTS/6)	Consolidator name/ address	Country of Origin
Commodity Weight	Stow Plan	Exporting Country
Shipper Name	Container Status Message	Exporting Date
Shipper Address		Foreign Port Arrival
Consignee Name		Estimated Arrival Date
Consignee Address		Entry Value
Vessel Name		HSUSA (10)
Vessel Country		Manufacturer ID
Vessel Number
Foreign Port of Lading
Hazmat Code
Container Numbers
Seal Numbers
Date of Departure from Foreign Port
Time of Departure from Foreign Port

NCBFAA Treasurer Attends London Proliferation Workshop
       NCBFAA Treasurer Geoffrey Powell recently attended a two-day Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Maritime Industry Workshop in London, England at the invitation of Training and Assistance Division Office of International Affairs, CBP, DHS.
       President Bush initiated the PSI in 2003 to detect, deter, check and roll back programs for development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and related delivery in countries of concern as well as reduce the supply and demand for such weapons and the means of their production worldwide The PSI with 75 member countries has focused on Diplomatic, Legal, Intelligence and Operations. The purpose of this operations workshop was to increase knowledge of PSI and to improve government knowledge of industry practices, specifically in the maritime environment. NCBFAA’s invitation to this event is indicative of the growing importance of the role played by NCBFAA members’ in guarding against WMDs in the supply chain.

        CBP received nearly 13,000 electronic manifests filings in September – a dramatic increase since April when only a thousand were filed. This pushes the number of filings CBP has received to more that 40,000 and this number continues to grow as the ACE and the e-manifest feature become available at more land-border ports of entry.
       "We are very pleased with the continued growth in e-manifest usage," said Cargo Systems Program Office Executive Director Lou Samenfink. "Every company that makes the switch to e-manifests now will avoid the rush and any resulting delays when we begin to make e-manifests mandatory next year." The e-manifest capability is available to truck carriers at all ports of entry where the ACE has been deployed. ACE is currently deployed to 49 ports and will ultimately be in all 99 land-border ports. It will be extended to air, rail, and sea cargo processing in coming years. For information about how to establish an ACE account, e-mail CBP at acenow@ dhs.gov.

Speaking before two Italian Customs Brokers Associations, NCBFAA Secretary Darrell Sekin addressed the future of the customs brokerage industry in the United States and what the NCBFAA has done to help insure that future. In his speech, he provided the nearly 125 attendees with an overview of America’s history of customs brokerage and encouraged them to trumpet their expertise as well as maintain it through educational initiatives. A copy of his address can be found here. http://www.ncbfaa.org/body/comments/ sekinspeech.htm Convened by the Associazione Doganalisti Emilia Romagna (The Customs Brokers Association of the Emilia area) and the Consiglio Nazionale Spezionieri Doganali (The Italian National Customs Brokers Association), the conference focused on the evolving status of European Customs Brokers and their role in light of the European Union’s efforts to establish an all-encompassing service provider known as an Authorized Economic Operator (AEO).

      The NCBFAA recently conducted its third class at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA, to familiarize new CBP inspectors and import specialists with the function and work of customs brokers.
       Begun earlier this year, these sessions, led by Myra Reynolds, John S. James, Co., Savannah, GA, are based on programs initiated by the regional Associations several years ago that invited new CPB employees to spend time in an actual customs brokers office to become familiar with the role that customs brokers play in the preparation and processing of importations.
       The classes are becoming quarterly events with the most recent one including 25 Import Specialists along with three CBP instructors. In reviewing the newly added course material, CBP instructional staff suggested that CBP Entry Specialists be included in the classes scheduled for January.
       Because these programs have led to a better understanding by CBP staff of the brokers’ function, the NCBFAA believes these classes benefit both the trade and CBP and thanks member volunteers for their participation.

        NCBFAA Chairman Federico (Kiko) Zuniga and International Federation of Customs Brokers Associations (IFCBA) Chairman Thomas Nietsch along with fellow IFCBA Managing Directors Michel Vallée, Francisco Jaime King, and Carol West recently met with World Customs Organization (WCO) Secretary General Michel Danet and WCO US Representative Michael Schmidt during a November meeting in Belgium. Discussions covered WCO positions on authorized economic operator (AEO), mutual recognition of national trade security initiatives, safe framework of standards and efforts to secure the broker’s role in international trade. This meeting served to identify the important role that customs brokers play in the facilitation of international trade.
       An important outcome of this meeting was a well-received proposal that the IFCBA serve as an information bridge between the WCO and small to medium international traders represented by customs brokers in the NACBA countries (United States, Canada and Mexico) as well as South America. Updates on the implementation and effectiveness of this proposal to use the educational facilities of the national organizations to disseminate WCO information will be reported on in future editions of the Monday Morning eBriefing.

NCBFAA Quartely Bulletin

Table of Contents