<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>There is a new wrinkle you need to be aware of.</p>
<p>Some USFWS Division of Law Enforcement staffers are telling
museum personnel that the ACE requirement applies only to cargo
and that hand-carries are not cargo. In fact, back then, LE told
us that the ACE requirements would not apply to non-commercial
imports at all. <br>
</p>
<p>It turns out that CBP disagrees, as detailed in the message I
sent out in January (below). As far as CBP is concerned, it
doesn't matter if you ship or hand-carry. If it is not personal or
household, it is cargo, regardless of the method of
transportation. Although LE HQ is aware of the fact that CBP
regards the imports as cargo, word has apparently not trickled
down to the port staff. If you follow the advice of LE port staff,
you are likely to find yourself having problems with CBP.<br>
</p>
<p>Since the USFWS does not make policy for CBP, and since you have
to satisfy the import requirements of both agencies (as well as
APHIS), you will need to continue to deal with the CBP problem. <br>
</p>
<p>I apologize for the fact that the information I have relayed to
you has been inconsistent and often contradictory but realize that
it is just that - information that I have been given by CBP and
have relayed to you. The information I have been given has been
inconsistent and contradictory and I find it just as frustrating
as do you. I am awaiting a response to a letter that I was *asked*
to write regarding a mobile app and other matters and despite the
fact that I've been told for two years that there was a plan to
develop a mobile app, the initial response (inadvertently shared
with me) was that there was no such plan and that CBP doesn't have
the resources. I've been given information that is absolutely
contrary to the formal regulations (that are the law) and I've
even been told that the regulations are not the best source of
information and was instead referred to a laundry list of
websites. <br>
</p>
<p>Under the regulations, your imports (whether "cargo" or not)
should be eligible for the <i>de minimis</i> rule, which entails
informal (not ACE) entry.</p>
<p><i>§ 10.151 Importations not over $800.</i><i><br>
</i><i>Subject to the conditions in § 10.153 of this part, the
port director shall</i><i><br>
</i><i>pass free of duty and tax any shipment of merchandise, as
defined in §</i><i><br>
</i><i>101.1 of this chapter, imported by one person on one day
having a fair</i><i><br>
</i><i>retail value, as evidenced by an oral declaration or the
bill of lading (or</i><i><br>
</i><i>other document filed as the entry) or manifest listing each
bill of lading,</i><i><br>
</i><i>in the country of shipment not exceeding $800, unless he
has reason to</i><i><br>
</i><i>believe that the shipment is one of several lots covered by
a single order</i><i><br>
</i><i>or contract and that it was sent separately for the express
purpose of</i><i><br>
</i><i>securing free entry therefor or of avoiding compliance with
any pertinent</i><i><br>
</i><i>law or regulation. Merchandise subject to this exemption
shall be</i><i><br>
</i><i>entered under the informal entry procedures (see subpart C,
part 143, and</i><i><br>
</i><i>§§ 128.24, 145.31, 148.12, and 148.62, of this chapter).</i></p>
<p>However, CBP apparently thinks that the de minimis exception does
not apply to hand-carries that have PGA declaration requirements
even though neither the statute nor the regulation restrict the
exemption in that manner.</p>
<p>Right or wrong, the bigger problem is this regulation:</p>
<p>§<i> 143.22 Formal entry may be required.</i><i><br>
</i><i>CBP may require a formal consumption or appraisement entry
for any merchandise</i><i><br>
</i><i>if deemed necessary for import admissibility enforcement
purposes; revenue</i><i><br>
</i><i>protection; or the efficient conduct of customs business.
Individual shipments for the</i><i><br>
</i><i>same consignee, when such shipments are valued at $2,500 or
less, may be</i><i><br>
</i><i>consolidated on one such entry.</i><br>
</p>
<p>That basically codifies arbitrary decisions at the time of
import. <br>
</p>
<p>The same CBP staffer said, "...the agent may require formal entry
if there is “one articulable fact” but the regulation is extremely
vague and whatever the operational standard may be, this
regulation is subject to arbitrary implementation. In fact, she
told me that, “This is what trade and travel is about, risks. You
must measure your risk and either decide to take it or not."</p>
<p>In other words, a crap-shoot. <br>
</p>
<p>Can you afford to take that risk? <br>
</p>
<p>If not, then I continue to advise you to use a customs broker for
your hand-carries. They can file the formal ACE entry for you. <br>
</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I have asked USFWS and CBP to work out their
differences and I will continue to push for the app-based access
to ACE so you can file the formal entries directly and for other
measures to try to prevent problems with your imports. I still
have my doubts about the cargo manifest idea - apart from the fact
that it is likely to be problematic to achieve, I have yet to be
assured that the manifest covers all the information required for
a formal ACE entry, so it would achieve nothing in terms of
assuring a trouble-free import. <br>
</p>
<p>There is a paper-based formal entry process but (a) the two
required forms are very complex and full of jargon and
abbreviations and concepts that only customs brokers would
understand - even with the instructions and my growing knowledge
of the importing world, it took me nearly a full day to complete
them and (b) the ports are not required to accept them and indeed
some have already said that they won't do so because they are then
required to do the ACE entry themselves and they don't have the
time to do so. Nonetheless, I suggested a single, simplified form
for these non-commercial cargo hand-carried imports and went so
far as to design the form myself, including all the information
required by CBP for such imports. I have submitted that the CBP
but have had no response yet. These things take time.</p>
Ellen Paul<br>
Executive Director<br>
<a
href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.nmnh.si.edu_BIRDNET%26d%3DDwMDaQ%26c%3DcjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ%26r%3DLpYc_Z_iN1KRw0hheb3x6-8MJUMu482qfHowpGYJqwc%26m%3DnBrL1riAoZpSP9vlOqi9_o7JVpcYTodGmF2UHL3Ud-M%26s%3DqsSlrNm69QntIGt-7BRq3QgL5oIbTlVpWFPkk3sQ32o%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7Cscarson%40amnh.org%7C5b99c698a465441f7b5c08d5579c67e2%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=anlwPbMfgpH0X7OoQGuNQm70JXqflR59ukhzCDfNwqE%3D&reserved=0">Ornithological
Council</a> <br>
Phone (301) 986 8568<br>
Providing Scientific Information about Birds
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A23D5619-5126-4767-8E3B-7684BC5B4BFD@verizon.net">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a
href="mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu</a>
<<a
href="mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ellen Paul<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 09, 2018 3:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bulletin Board for Bird Collections
and Curators <<a
href="mailto:AVECOL-L@LISTSERV.LSU.EDU"
moz-do-not-send="true">AVECOL-L@LISTSERV.LSU.EDU</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> NHCOLL-new <<a
href="mailto:nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Nhcoll-l] New developments on
the ACE entry process/requirements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>I met with CBP officials today to hear about their
proposed solutions to the ACE entry problem as it
pertains to hand-carries. At last report, the
Ornithological Council had been readying a request for
a private ruling that, if CBP responded positively, I
would have then made available to ornithologists to
carry when arriving with imports. In essence, it would
have had the same effect as guidance to the
ports(which is what we'd first requested), albeit in a
round-about manner. However, they asked that the OC
hold off to them time to discuss other solutions. <span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>So this was the first of several planned meetings and
we will be going forward with at least two of the
specific ideas they have proposed, which are to hold a
webinar for their field operations people (it will be
recorded so they can use it even if they can't attend
when it is offered live) and a FAQ. That will help
them to understand the USFWS and APHIS requirements
and how we meet them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However, it won't address the one key issue, which is
that ACE entry problem. The only current work-around
is to use a customs broker but that could get
expensive in a hurry. However, they have another
concern, which is advance notice of the shipment.
Right now, there is only one way to give them advance
notice with is via airline cargo manifests. Their
suggested solution - the airline cargo manifest -
actually solves both problems. It would entail one
more step for you, but it would take care of the ACE
problem at no cost to you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So basically, they regard your import as cargo or
merchandise, even though you are importing in your
personal accompanying luggage, because of the nature
of the import. And frankly, they were almost certainly
going to turn down our request for a private letter
ruling because in essence, it was asking that the
imports NOT be considered cargo or merchandise. Their
attorneys had already suggested that they would not
agree to that. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So about airline cargo manifests - basically, you
would have to ask your airlines cargo office to add
your import to their manifest. That means the airline
handles the ACE entry for you and CBP has its advance
notice. They are going to set up meetings with airline
reps so I can get more information about how this is
done and what it entails and obviously, I would then
share the information with you. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Now, I know of one instance where the CBP told us
that a hand-carry import should be handled this way
and the ornithologist went to the airline and asked
for this and the airline had no idea what he was
talking about. And CBP acknowledged that this can
happen with some airlines and that they realize a
gap-filler is needed. I suggested a single point of
contact who can receive e-mails with the necessary
information and then contact the U.S. port of arrival
to prevent problems. They are going to consider that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So for now, the only way to be sure to avoid
hand-carry problems is to use a customs broker but we
should soon have that sorted out. FWIW, I have not
heard of a single problem with hand-carries since
August 2017, so either all of you are using brokers,
or the CBP has eased up knowing this problem exists. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So stay tuned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Ellen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>PS - I have been mistakenly calling the port
inspectors Agricultural Quarantine Inspectors (AQI).
That is what they were called when they were still
USDA APHIS employees (pre 9/11). When they were
transferred to CBP, they became known as CBP
Agricultural Specialists. There is still an APHIS
presence at the ports but they are not the people you
see when you go for your agricultural inspection. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<o:p></o:p> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>