Export Process SED Comments--October 5, 1998

October 5, 1998
Director
Bureau of the Census
Room 2049
Federal Building 3
Washington, DC 20233
Re: Docket No. 980716108-8108-01

Amendment to Foreign Trade Statistics Regulations to Clarify Exporters’ and Forwarding Agents Responsibilities and to Clarify Provisions for Executing a Power of Attorney

Dear Sir:

The Joint Industry Group (JIG) thanks you for this opportunity to submit comments as requested in the Federal Register (63 FR 41979) of August 6, 1998.

JIG is a coalition of more than 130 companies, trade associations, professionals and businesses actively involved in international trade. We both examine and reflect the concerns of the business community relative to current and proposed Customs and export-related policies, actions, legislation, and regulations. We undertake to improve policies and procedures through dialogue with government agencies and the Congress. The Joint Industry Group represents over $250 billion in trade.

There are reasons not to change the current regulations as proposed. JIG would like to express our concerns about these proposed regulations:

According to 13 USC Sec. 301, the Secretary of Commerce does not have the authority to formulate a definition of an “export” or an “exporter” that differs from the definition stated in the Export Administration Act;
The proposed regulations do not fully consider operational coordination for export shipments, involving the traditional specific roles and responsibilities of a US manufacturer, the forwarding agent, and the foreign purchaser;
As stated in Guide to INCOTERMS 1990, the seller has no obligation in filing an export clearance in behalf of the buyer. The proposed regulations would not be in accord with internationally accepted terms of sale and therefore nullify this commercial practice;
The concept of the US principal party in interest in the export transaction is vague and confusing;
The owner of the goods at the time of export should be the responsible party;
The proposed regulations create an added administrative burden that does not already exist in the current regulations; and,
The proposed regulations do not appear to add value to the export transaction any more than current regulations. If each party to the transaction would just do what is required under current regulations the desired result could be achieved.

One example in particular is purchases made by foreign companies on an Ex Works basis. For all intents and purposes for the US supplier, these transactions are like a domestic delivery. The US supplier does not facilitate the export, other than to turn over the product to the forwarding agent. Furthermore, in cases of drop shipments the supplier does not collect any payment from the foreign purchaser. Only the forwarding agent, acting on behalf of the foreign purchaser has control of the shipment, not the supplier. Obviously, too, it is only the forwarding agent that can apply the appropriate destination control statement to the customer’s invoice as required in the regulations.

If the intent of the proposed regulations is to clarify the various roles and responsibilities we suggest that the matter needs further review and analysis, to develop other alternative solutions. This is especially true if there is an interest on the part of the Bureau of the Census to identify the US manufacturer of exported goods; there are more efficient methods to use.

We believe that current regulations are most appropriate, however, we would like to discuss options in greater detail, before implementing revisions to the regulations.

Sincerely,

Robert Kimbrel
Chairman
JIG Export Process Committee