AAEI Supports Removal of AD/CVD Language from House Customs Bills, Comments on Other Provisions
The American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) joined the chorus of customs groups asking for removal of AD/CVD section from the still-under-discussion House customs reauthorization bill, saying the section should be removed “so it does not slow down passage of this important legislation.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
AAEI filed comments April 5 on HR-6642, introduced last session by former Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Texas. AAEI praised the overall goals of the bill, including the reorganization of CBP, increased accountability for the Automated Commercial Environment and the integration of partner government agencies into the International Trade Data System. The group did cite concerns with the bill, specifically the AD/CVD section, which it characterized as ambiguous.
By allowing evasion petitions to be filed by any party of interest with tangential information, the bill opens up importers to timely, expensive allegation proceedings. To reduce the likelihood that a competitor or former employee instigates a case simply to harm an importer, lawmakers should consider “allowing importers to recover legal fees from the whistle blower who brought an incorrect case to the authorities,” AAEI said.
The group also said a single entry bond should “be carefully targeted at those parties at highest risk for evasion. Adding additional requirements for already compliant importers will simply add cost and likely not stop evasion," the group said.
The AD/CVD section is essentially the sole difference between the Brady bill and the competing House customs bill, HR-6642, introduced last session by Democratic leaders on Ways and Means: Sandy Levin, D-Mich., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash. Last month, a group of 15 industry groups urged removal of that section in the interests of pushing the customs bills forward (see 13032501). In comments, AAEI agreed with that proposal. “We are concerned that the broad support of the international trade community for this legislation would splinter based upon their respective responsibilities under the [AD/CVD] laws.”
AAEI also criticized the bill’s non-resident importer requirement, which mandates non-resident importers designate a resident agent who would be financially liable for any problems with the shipment. The provision will be “difficult and expensive” for small and medium enterprises, AAEI said, which have fewer resources to dedicate to trade compliance. The rule “will simply add another disincentive to export to foreign markets due to a lower return on investment because of the risks associated with potential foreign litigation.”
On ACE, the group urged Congress to provide adequate funding, a timeline and strict oversight for the program. “The sooner that key functionality (such as cargo release, all entry types, edits and reconciliation) is completed, the sooner the old system ‘ACS’ may be turned off,” AAEI said. Development of ACE is also “absolutely essential” for CBP to handle drawback claims that fulfill the goals of streamlining and simplifying drawback, the group said.
AAEI also urged addressing of some “critical issues” on the bill’s drawback provisions, such as the inclusion of eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule substitution. “We will need to challenge [Ways and Means] on their premise that certain ‘basket’ provisions will increase the amount of drawback recovered,” the group said. The bill also does not mention the use of an HTS bill of material for manufacturing drawback, AAEI said. “This was a critical element in distinguishing unused from manufacturing drawback.”