Blurring the Lines Between Security and Free Trade
1/18/2010
by John Goodrich | Format
for Print
I am approaching a milestone birthday this year. While that is cause to celebrate, it is also cause to take stock of a disturbing loss of my ocular faculties. I have what my optometrist calls “prepbyopia.” Wikipedia defines this as “old man eyes” or progressively diminished ability to focus on near objects with age. Great! I am now officially an old man, and I have blurred vision!
It appears Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is also developing a case of regulatory presbyopia.
Since its inception in 2002, CBP has operated under the twin goals of securing our nation’s borders while fostering economic security through lawful trade and travel. It was originally believed that any excessive measure that impeded lawful trade was seen as a victory for the terrorists. In order to win against the extremists, our trade must continue to flow freely. Clearly there were areas in which lawful trade and security could collaborate. Out of this collaboration was born the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program.
Throughout the development of C-TPAT the administration of commercial trade compliance and security remained at arm’s length. Over time, however, the lines have blurred between the two goals.
Tom Winkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, was quoted at the recent CBP trade symposium as saying; “…the days of security and compliance being separate are long gone.” This came as no surprise to the trade that has been grappling with the implementation of the Importer Security Filing (ISF or 10+2) process.
What the trade may not have noticed is another blurring of the lines, this time in the area of regulatory audit. Buried deep on the CBP website under regulatory audit is a reference to a new program known as “Supply Chain Security Observations (SCSO).” Any importer that is undergoing a Focused Assessment (audit) and is not already a C-TPAT participant will be asked to complete a security questionnaire. The regulatory audit team assigned to the importer will also make security observations as it performs its Focused Assessment of the importer.
The Questionnaire appears to be a simple 22-question, three-page document that is prefaced with the following statement:
The purpose of the Supply Chain Security Questionnaire is to obtain information regarding the importer’s supply chain security management procedures. For the following questions we ask that you (1) provide the written policy or procedure in which your supply chain security procedures are documented, (2) specifically identify the sections and/or pages that address our questions, and (3) if there is no written policy or procedure, provide a narrative describing the process that is in place.
While it is an apparently simple questionnaire, it will require an importer to expend considerable resources to respond to it. At the end of the SCSO, the audit team will make its report and draw the importer’s attention to any supply chain security risks.
CBP claims the reason it is taking this step is because not all companies have joined C-TPAT and, as a result, CBP does not have sufficient knowledge about certain areas of the import supply chain. It also claims that the security teams at CBP are sufficiently busy with those companies that have already joined the C-TPAT program. It is logical, therefore, to use the Regulatory Audit staff to expand CBP’s security bandwidth.
This all seems innocuous until we remember that the SCSO is being done within the context of a legally required commercial trade compliance audit. The SCSO and the ISF/10+2 have so blurred the lines between security and trade compliance it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. Importers should question and be concerned if security data will now be used for compliance purposes.
Perhaps it is because my vision is blurred, but that’s how I see it.
Return to
Trade Articles
|
