ITT Q&A with Barb Carman of BCB International

International Trade Today will periodically feature a Q&A with a customs industry professional. Our interviewee for this edition is Barbara Carman, Director of Compliance with BCB International, a privately held customs brokerage in Buffalo, N.Y. Carman has been with BCB International since 1995 Licensed in 1992, she has been in the customs brokerage industry for almost 30 years and is an active member of the NCBFFA and the International Compliance Professionals Association.

Has the recent increase to CBP's enforcement of Importer Security Filing (ISF or 10+2) had much effect on doing business? If so, how?

In our experience, ISF has had the greatest effect on infrequent importers who use third party service providers to facilitate the export process. These importers often have difficulty obtaining all of the required information from the third parties twenty-four hours prior to loading. Importers with complicated supply chains are still struggling to meet regulatory timeframes. For brokers processing these imports, ISF requirements have added additional process and oversight functions, increasing the time and expense involved in release.

Beyond some of the traditional customs-focused operations, what other responsibilities have brokers taken on in recent years?

More and more government agencies are using the Customs release process as a means of regulatory control and oversight. As a result, brokers have had to gain technical expertise above and beyond 19 CFR to ensure entry compliance. Brokers must be experts not only in Customs requirements, but in a wide array of highly specialized fields, including electronics (FCC), chemical analysis (EPA), and so on. Currently, these agencies provide very little guidance for laymen on these technical subjects. We would like to see the OGAs provide more educational outreach for brokers. In terms of compliance and subsequent enforcement, it should also be noted that brokers are the intermediaries in the submission of OGA required data. As relayers of importer supplied data, brokers should not be assessed culpability for data that they did not create.

Should the broker exam be easier or harder?

The broker exam is intended to test the applicant on their knowledge of the law and their ability to interpret regulation. Recent exams have not adequately tested the examinee's ability to function as a broker; much of the "challenge" seems to come from confusingly-worded questions, not the subject matter itself.

The exam should place a greater emphasis on practical applications of the material, testing an individual's ability to apply CBP processes and regulations to real world scenarios. For example, the exam might include the preparation of a 3641, 7501, or AES export declaration based on a set of sample import documents. It might even ask examinees to follow the required processes all the way through to duty payment. This wouldn't necessarily make the exam "easier" or "harder", but it would make the exam better.

There's been discussion of CBP requiring 40 hours of continuing education every three years for customs brokers. Does that seem like an appropriate standard?

There's no question that continuing education is vital for brokers, but the number of course hours is only part of the story. We need to be sure that brokers will be obtaining a quality education in those 40 hours. There must be a transparent accreditation process for broker education courses to ensure some baseline level of quality. Without such a process, the system would be wide open to corruption and fraud, as brokers would essentially be forced to purchase a product without any consumer protection or assurance of quality. The question for CBP is whether the benefits of mandatory continuing education for brokers outweigh the costs of responsible oversight.

How do you see the job changing as CBP moves to a more virtual environment, particularly within the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEEs)?

BCB International has fully embraced the digital revolution, and we've found it to be a huge benefit to clients and to our business. We were approved for electronic record keeping in 2001 and have since progressed from electronic records to an almost completely paperless process. This has given us greater visibility, access, and control for all of our records and documentation, and has also allowed us to provide our clients with immediate access to their entries and supporting import documentation.

More broadly speaking, most Northern Border brokers (including BCB International) are now able to consolidate smaller port offices into centralized processing centers. Much like CBP’s CEEs, these centralized processing centers bring together a great deal of organizational expertise, allowing brokers to achieve greater operational oversight, supervision, and control.

The CEEs have been a valuable resource for us and our clients. Some of our importers participate in the CEE, and we’ve found that their involvement has (in some instances) eliminated certain repetitive census errors. We’ve also utilized the CEE as a resource for various import and classification issues, and anticipate that the CEEs will help to establish greater uniformity in opinion and process.

Do you participate in any CBP pilot programs? Has it/have they been valuable?

Pilot programs allow brokers to have meaningful input into a program’s development. Although BCB International welcomes any opportunity to participate in the development of Customs programs, we have to be sure that our participation will provide a real benefit to our importers. Participation often requires frequent, costly changes to our software as the program requirements evolve, and many software providers hesitate to develop new programming to accommodate these ever-changing requirements.

Unless there is strong importer interest, we prefer to follow developments closely until the programs have matured. We tend to limit our involvement to port-based pilot programs, which tend to be less disruptive.

Which other government agencies have lately caused the most issues? Do you see that changing with new food safety and product safety regulations coming out?

A CPSC certification is currently presented for release on demand. The proposed inclusion of the CPSC certification as a data element on the ISF or 7501 transmission places additional reporting responsibilities on the broker.

We hope that the problems experienced in 2013 resulting from the first FSMA mandated registration renewals will be overcome in 2014. Automatic facility registration cancellation without notice due to something as simple as a spelling change caught Importers by surprise resulting in costly border holds. It seems that FDA is still trying to figure out ways to handle further implementation of FMSA and may still have many of the proposed processes under review. Congressional pressure to push implementation before those processes are reviewed against the effect on trade may be problematic for Importers and complicate release approval. We do look forward to and encourage FDA plans for centralization of port processes.