NCBFAA Recommends Improvements to CBP’s Used Vehicle Export Pilot

Customs brokers and forwarders commended an effort by CBP to modernize the export process for used self-propelled vehicles exports (USPVs), but said a range of questions “remain unanswered” about how the new pilot will work in practice. They also said CBP can make several improvements to the pilot, including by allowing filers to submit electronic export documents before a vehicle is delivered to the port of export.

CBP launched the pilot Jan. 9, allowing certain electronic filings for USPVs to be filed electronically through the Document Imaging System as opposed to via paper submissions (see 2212160021). The agency in May said the paper process is a “drain” on CBP staffing resources and believes electronic filings will have a “significant impact on the speed and efficiency of vehicle export processing” (see 2205090010).

The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America applauded the modernization effort but asked CBP to make several tweaks to the pilot. In comments sent to CBP and shared with Export Compliance Daily this week, the NCBFAA’s Vehicle Export Working Group said the agency can help prevent delays for ocean and air shipments by allowing filers to submit documents in DIS before the vehicle is delivered to the port.

This change could be helpful particularly because the export “must be accepted in [the Automated Export System] prior to submitting documents in DIS,” the NCBFAA said. “An earlier submission in DIS will allow CBP to perform a risk assessment using the information provided in AES and DIS while the USPV is en route to the port/airport of export.”

And if CBP needs to physically inspect the vehicle after reviewing the documents, the association said “arrangements to have the USPV made available at the port/airport of export would be less costly and more efficient than if the USPV were already at the port/airport of export.” Allowing CBP to review the DIS and AES information beforehand could also “minimize the vehicle being inadvertently loaded on the aircraft/vessel prior to the documents being reviewed.”

CBP should also require other parties -- beyond the pilot participants -- to maintain access to the USPV export documentation in its “original form,” the NCBFAA said. The group said forwarders aren’t “routinely the party in possession” of the original documents in their original form. The original documents, for instance, may be in possession of a carrier if the vehicle’s owner hired a carrier to export the vehicle.

The agency should expand the requirement to “include other involved parties in the transaction, such as the US exporter, foreign buyer (if they are physically exporting the vehicle), or the carrier that will present the vehicle and documents at the US border crossing to have access to the documents in their original form,” the NCBFAA said.

CBP should also discontinue the use of a vehicle-specific power of attorney (POA), letter of intent and cover letter by all CBP ports that require them, the NCBFAA said, adding that while a freight forwarder may have a POA, the sample POA and written authorization in the Foreign Trade Regulations aren’t “commodity specific.”

“Having to provide a vehicle specific POA unduly burdens trade as this document often times needs to be reviewed and approved by legal counsel prior to a principal party of interest executing a POA,” the association said. “An exporter may also export other commodities, or they may be an importer as well, so a POA could be issued for other purposes beyond authorizing filing [Electronic Export Information] to the AES for a self-propelled used vehicle.” The letter of intent and cover letter also contain information already transmitted in AES and information in the documents submitted in DIS, “causing unnecessary, duplicate information,” the NCBFAA said.

The association also pointed to several unanswered questions that CBP should address, including whether pilot participants will be notified by the agency if they need to submit more information with their filing or if a field inspection is necessary. And if CBP plans to send status notifications to participants, it should also say how soon after the document submission in DIS should parties expect to receive a response.

The NCBFAA also asked whether the DIS will “facilitate CBP’s calculation of the 72-hour window in a harmonized manner across all ports per mode of transportation.” The group said each port currently has its own policy “as to what satisfies” the 72 hours: some ports begin the 72 hours at the time the internal transaction number is accepted in AES, others “count calendar hours” from the time documents and the ITN are submitted to CBP, some ports only count business days as satisfying the 72 hours, etc.

Other ports don’t require “any documentation in order to initiate the 72 hours,” the NCBFAA said. “How will this pilot affect the current requirements at these ports? Will documentation be required to initiate the 72 hours once the pilot starts?”

A CBP spokesperson didn’t comment.