The following is a list of concerns over the US '10+2' Proposal for Advance Trade Data Elements.

1. Giving a reduced data set as an AEO, for example, is of very limited appeal when we have to give the same data, or worse subtly different data sets, several times.

We would much prefer to give a single common set of data, to the US, the EU or anywhere else but just once. This could be achieved by using a web portal or similar. Is there any possibility that such a system could be made worldwide? Would the various trading blocs - especially the EU - be able to buy into this idea politically or are we going to see the usual ‘lines in the sand’ drawn by the respective trading blocs?

The whole basis of trade is set up to deal with a single data set moving, with the goods, from country to country. This seems to have escaped the notice of the authorities.

Since all signatories to WCO SAFE should be using a common data set the apparent disagreements are baffling. It’s not that we don’t want to give the data...just make it easy for us.

2. Who has the data? As usual, everything appears tuned to the freight forwarding community but shippers are better positioned to kick off the data collection activity. Key issues here are:

2.1. A single identifier to 'tag' a shipment so that the respective parties can add in data. The Global UCR has been bandied about for some years. Why do we need yet another unique reference number? Ordinary commercial practise already offers a unique ID (a de facto UCR?) in the form of the MAWB/HAWB or MBL/HBL combinations. Accepting that some work would be needed, why are we continually re-inventing the wheel?

2.2. Some shippers will be unable to provide the necessary data for a variety of reasons; inexperience and lack of resource being two of them. They will have to rely on the offices of their forwarder. This is fine but the option needs to be available for those shippers able to perform the activity to do so.

2.3. This is my best fit for the 12 US data elements and how the respective parties could furnish data. This pre-supposes an experienced shipper and is based on UK practises.

o Manufacturer name & address
o Seller name & address
o Buyer name & address
o Ship to name & address
o Country of origin for the goods
o Commodity HS number (6 digit level)

All these are readily available to the exporter prior to export, or should be. They are best provided by them or via an intermediary such as an agent.

o Importer of record number
o Consignee number
These may be available to the exporter, certainly to the agent in the transaction. Either party could provide the data, the agent is probably best. The contract between exporter and consignee/importer can cover the need for this information. It could be a requirement to be shown on export paperwork, for example.

o Container stuffing location
o Consolidator name & address
These are more readily available to the agent. They are best provided by them. Exporters who fully understand and control their agents activities should be able to verify this data if needed. Indeed, to have proper safe and secure control of their supply chain, exporters must know who consolidates their goods and where. Again a contract between the parties could require this information to be made available.

o Vessel stow plan
o Container status messages
These are realistically only available to the agent and/or vessel operator. They are best provided by them.

3. Also at this stage, ownership of the compliance responsibility needs to be rammed home.

In the UK at least, an importer or exporter of record may outsource all their logistical activities to agent. They may not outsource their compliance obligation however. This is poorly understood by business in general, outside the immediate area anyway. The implications of having an agent perform all activity, well or otherwise, without ultimate responsibility are also not always understood.

4. I have already alluded to the importance of forwarders in this data collection. Whilst there are many good forwarders there are as many poor ones, and the ability of good ones suffers when up against time constraints. This is, of course, the norm in the industry.

We also have to consider what data they get from consignors who really do not understand or appreciate the data requirement (i.e. many of them). How can a forwarder cover that gap?

Data is always prone to adaptation to what is available at the time, especially on airfreight. Do we honestly expect an agent to either delay a flight or risk losing a major customer because, for whatever reason, one of these data elements is unavailable? Experience shows that an agent will, often in good faith, make their best guess as to such data. This may be wholly accurate or wholly inaccurate.

5. Suppliers who do not have English as first language exacerbate these issues and may cause problems.

6. With the best will in the world an importer will sometimes use a different classification from the exporter. How is that discrepancy to be dealt with? What are the implications for security of such a 'misclassification'?

Highly technical products especially give rise to problems in this area.

How far back down the supply chain do CBP require manufacturer data? CBP appear to have stepped back by requiring just the name and address of the entity that last manufactures, assembles, produces or grows the imported commodity. However, without definitive confirmation of the requirement it remains a concern. CBP may still want to know the ultimate manufacturer of every component of every product imported into the US. This will present huge problems and difficulties for importers and exporters to acquire.

7. Finally there is the issue of delays arising from providing data, or whilst obtaining data, or even whilst CBP work out what the data is telling them.

The manufacturer, the exporter, the importer has most to lose. They are the ones whose goods are examined, refused, unloaded of just plain delayed. The commercial impact of 10+2 is great if it is unfocused in application. Costs, of overhead, inventory buffer stock, premium freight lanes, will all increase. Competitiveness, especially against in-country competitors, will be damaged. Credibility with customers and with the authorities may suffer. The list could go on but the thrust of the argument is clear.


Above all market forces will determine whether the costs and inconvenience of dealing with US companies is worthwhile. In general, the answer would still be yes but it impacts on the cost of doing business with the US and other markets may prove easier to deal with. The US will be extremely sensitive to this aspect of the impact of their controls. Whether they choose to do anything about it is another matter.

This post was produced by Mark Corby, Customs & Trade Compliance Manager for a leading multinational company, based in the United Kingdom.

Labels: freight forwarders, outsourcing, security, shippers