COAC says new C-TPAT standards need more work
An influential group of industry leaders that provides advice to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on trade and security issues said it could only give “qualified support” to the agency’s final draft of baseline standards for companies participating in the voluntary Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program.
CBP is under pressure to put teeth in the program so that companies that sign up follow through on promises to tighten supply chain security procedures overseas and during transit in exchange for fewer cargo exams and other benefits. The fifth, and “final,” draft is substantially similar to the previous two versions of the security criteria that CBP has circulated among select individuals and trade associations in the import/export community.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations (COAC) still has concerns about how the new criteria will be implemented by importers, how CBP intends to administer or ensure compliance with the new criteria, the consequences for non-compliance and the specific benefits importers can expect to receive based on participation, Sandra Fallgatter, customs and trade manager for J.C. Penney, told agency officials at Tuesday’s COAC meeting.
The new criteria are a compilation of best practices CBP has identified during the first three years of the program that it thinks all importers should follow to raise the bar on security and provide a common set of expectations.
The criteria call on importers to verify that overseas suppliers and transportation providers have appropriate security procedures in place to prevent a terrorist weapon being inserted in a shipping container. The draft instructs importers to verify whether business partners are C-TPAT members and, if not, requires them to demonstrate that they are meeting the baseline C-TPAT security criteria.
Importers have raised concerns about how they are supposed to go about vetting their overseas suppliers. According to the draft document, importers would be required to follow up and verify a vendor’s compliance.
Kevin Smith, customs director for General Motors, urged CBP to consider further input from the trade because confusion remains about overlapping responsibilities between suppliers, transportation and logistics providers and importers.
CBP is not only looking at raising C-TPAT requirements, but also improving benefits for importers, Michael Mullen, CBP’s director of trade relations, emphasized. Benefits touted by CBP include a six-time reduction in the chance of cargo being pulled over for a secondary inspection (one in 306 vs. one in 47), qualification in the FAST expedited truck clearance program and fewer customs audits.
Mullen said other benefits under discussion include allowing shipments from C-TPAT companies to move to the head of the line if subjected to secondary inspection at central examination stations, priority clearance to move out of a port before cargo from less trusted shippers in the event of a terrorist attack, paperless entries, expedited rulings in penalty disputes, and penalty mitigation, a subject he also raised at the Customs Trade Symposium in January.
“We think it’s reasonable that other government agencies should grant benefits for C-TPAT membership,” Mullen added. CBP is in discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about ways to grant faster clearance for imports of food products, he said. “I think there should be a tax incentive for people who step up to higher security procedures” such as installing a smart container intrusion detection device on a container, Mullen said. “We’ve got tax incentives in this country for everything, why not use one for that?” Mullen said, before being reined in by Deputy Commissioner Deborah Spero for going beyond official policy. However, the discussion made clear tax incentives have been batted around in internal CBP brainstorming discussions.