CBP Says OIG Report on Centers of Excellence Oversight Problems Is 'Misleading'

CBP disagreed with several assertions made by the DHS Office of Inspector General in a new report that questions CBP's oversight of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise. "When combined with inadequate procedural guidance for the Centers, there is heightened risk of importers illicitly attempting to avoid paying duties and fees and circumventing trade practices, defrauding the Federal Government, and undermining lawful business," the OIG said. "Further, unreliable data from information systems hinders CBP’s ability to inform legislation, policies, and programs to improve them and make them more efficient."

The OIG made five suggestions meant to better align the centers with intent of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which codified the roles of the centers. The suggestions include improving performance metrics, updating procedures for defining the role in revenue collection and ensuring enforcement approaches are consistent, it said. CBP's leadership "strongly disagrees with the OIG's overall conclusion that 'CBP cannot determine if the centers are operating as intended," it said in a letter to the OIG in response to a draft version that was included in the final report. Despite concurring with the recommendations, CBP believes the report "will be misleading to end users of the final report, including Congress and the public," it said.

Surveys of center personnel show a need for clearer standard operating procedures (SOP), the OIG said. "CBP officials initially told us the primary Center guidance was the Unified Process Document," the OIG said. "After we pointed out that the Unified Process Document did not detail specific duties and key steps Center staff must perform, we were informed the primary Center SOP was the ACE Business Rules Document (internal version). We reviewed the ACE Business Rules Document and determined it too did not detail key steps and actions Center staff must complete during the post-release process."

The agency was clearly irked by the tenor of the OIG report. "CBP is dismayed with the inaccuracies and mischaracterize" of the report. For example, CBP was refused access to the survey questions used by the OIG, leaving CBP unable to "appreciate the potential value of OIG's analysis of survey results," it said. The OIG responded that "to maintain the integrity of the survey and the responses, OIG used professional judgment and shared pertinent information that related to the findings in this report."

The agency said the OIG also misunderstood how CBP enforces noncompliance. "The OIG incorrectly refers to the [Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture] procedures" as a form of trade revenue collection and protections, CBP said. "Despite documentation provided to the OIG, the OIG incorrectly suggests that the Centers are responsible for the assessment and tracking of fines and penalties. The FP&F offices, which remain at the ports of entry and are not part of the Centers," are responsible for assessing and tracking the fines and penalties. The OIG responded that the CBP's SOP for the Commercial Enforcement Analysis and Response process said there is "representation and support from the Service Ports, to coordinate commercial enforcement activities" and that the report doesn't make any "assertions on this process other than to highlight that the procedures in the SOP were not always followed."