Pending bill reverses trends of last eight yearsBy Peter A. Buxbaum, AJOTEver since the United States was hit by terror attacks in September 2001, many international trade practitioners have complained that the reaction of the federal government emphasized the role of Customs in providing cargo security at the expense of facilitating trade. A bill currently pending before the Senate Finance Committee, dubbed the Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2009, could put trade facilitation back in the mix if it should become law. The committee plans to take up the bill once it is finished with its health insurance reform measure, perhaps in three or four weeks. The bill includes several provisions that should gladden that hearts of traders, such as those pertaining to the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. There are also a few potential worrisome provisions in the measure. Key provisions of the bill would create several new positions and offices within Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland security focusing on Customs facilitation and enforcement. The legislation would also mandate the assignment of additional commercial enforcement officers at the nation’s 40 busiest ports of entry, authorize $300 million a year for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), streamline the duty drawback process, and create pilot programs at several land border crossings on the northern and southern borders at which Customs would be open 24 hours a day. The proposal would also reverse current policy by allowing CBP to use data from Importer Security Filings for commercial enforcement purposes. “There is likely to be strong industry support for many provisions in the bill,” said Jon Kent, the Washington legislative representative of the National Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association of America. “There appears to be a renewed sense in the bill of the importance of Customs for commercial operations. For so long this has been dwarfed by the agency’s attention to security-related issues.” Kent emphasized that the NCBFAA has yet to take an official position on the legislation. Michael Ford, vice president for regulatory compliance at BDP International in Philadelphia, viewed the appointment of a commissioner for trade facilitation and enforcement in a positive light. “It’s not that Customs hasn’t worked enough in those areas,” he said. “But it is better to have this designation, so that if someone has an issue they know where to go. Having a commissioner focused 100 percent on trade will be a good thing.” Kent was somewhat skeptical of the reorganization provisions in the bill. “Some people may be concerned about the effect this will have on the smooth operation of the agency in the short term,” he said. “They have been through reorganizations before and may be concerned about going through another.” Amy Magnus, a district director with A.N. Deringer in Champlain, NY, is particularly pleased with the creation of the position of trade advocate. “It shows Congress wants the agencies to work closely with industry,” she said. “The bill also mentions coordinating with the World Customs Union. We need to stop thinking about trade in US-centric terms. Trade is global and we need to harmonize and coordinate efforts globally.” More worrisome are the bills provisions allowing security filings, the 10+2 data, to be used for commercial enforcement purposes. “There is a level of confidentiality in the security information,” said Kent. “There is a concern about how the information will be deployed across the agency for commercial purposes.” In other words, some may fret that sensitive information will become public. Magnus is confident that the agencies in question can keep a secret. Anyway, she said, “I could never understand how they could not use this data for commercial targeting because the two could be linked.” Her concern relates to the technicalities of trade law that prevent anyone but licensed Customs bro