Hello,
I am a bit confused that US Brokers wont accept a CUSDEC or ANSI equivalent
as I thought that the US customs with AES (or is it AERP ?) used it.
I will write what we did in Australia which may be helpful.
Australian Customs allows automatic customs declaratons for imports and
exports
So we tried CUSDECs direct to Customs.
First Approach
---------------------------
In order to do a customs declaration we needed
1. the invoice - with the price, additional charges and details of all
parties involved with the shipment normally using a customs agency coding)
2. details of the tariff associated with the item ( this should be on the
invoice)
3. paper documents eg the invoice plus other declarations such as quarantine
, dangerous goods and licenses.
4. transportation information eg the bill of lading and the markings
5. The goods ( unless you preclear before arrival)
We found it easy to get 1 and 2 and 3 and we found it very hard to get 4
done in a timely accurate manner for imports before the goods arrived. So
we went to approach 2.
Second Approach
---------------------------
So we decided to send the INVOIC and get the freight forwarder/broker to
convert this to CUSDEC by finding a match between the invoice and the
customs reference number and their shipment.
We send invoice ( EDIFACT INVOIC D.97A) when we have entered it into our
accounts payable system (which we modify to have the full details of the
tariff)
If there is an error detected at the freight forwarder ( ie invalid customs
agency coding)
The freight forwarder delete our invoice
We receive an email error report with the full details of the
error and the raw EDI message.
The end users then fix the error
The invoice is resent
else
the freight forwarder uses the invoice number to hook to their bill
of lading details
the freight forwarder generates a CUSDEC.
the freight forwarder receives error messages from customs
the freight forwarder corrects and resends.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Need help on 857 & 310 structure
>
> None of the freight forwarders that we talked with mentioned use of
> CUSDEC.
> It may be that this document is more commonly used by customs brokers or
> if
> you are dealing with the customs office directly. We're too far into the
> process to change direction now; but this information may be of use to
> Kiran.
>
> David Whiting
> 3M Canada Company
>
>
> "Bennett, Allan (GEAE)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> David,
>
> The EDIFACT CUSDEC message would, I think, be your best bet since it was
> designed exactly for the functionality you are looking for. Any chance of
> getting your forwarders/brokers to use it? If they are operating in this
> international shipping/customs arena and are electronically enabled at all
> I
> would suspect that they are already using CUSDEC.
>
> Allan Bennett
> GE Aircraft Engines
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 9:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Need help on 857 & 310 structure
>
>
> We have been working on an export shipping system, which includes an EDI
> component to send shipping and invoice information (in the form of a
> "commercial invoice" or "customs invoice") to both our freight forwarders
> and customs brokers. We polled several freight forwarders to find out
> what
> is commonly used, and found that there is nothing "common" about this.
> Some transactions that are currently being used include 301, 304, 856, 810
> and Edifact INVOIC. We found the most widely accepted was the 856, so
> that's what we decided to use. The 310 is generally only used by the
> Ocean
> carrier to send a freight invoice to the forwarder or shipper.
>
> The 856 is not designed to carry invoice information very well, but we
> found it could be done by using repetitions of the SAC to hold the various
> charges. Perhaps the 857 would be better for this purpose, but
> unfortunately very few people use it in practice. Since we already have
> experience with the 856, we decided to go with what we know.
>
> We are currently piloting this transaction with our freight forwarders and
> it seems to be OK. We also plan to send the same document to our customs
> broker for those shipments where we don't use a forwarder, but we haven't
> got the buy-in from the broker yet.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Whiting
> 3M Canada Company
>
>
> --- Kiran Dunthuluri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have shipments coming different country via
> > ocean. We need to send the
> > shipment information along with cost(Invoice
> > information) and customs
> > information to the customs Broker. We are looking at
> > the EDI documents 857 and
> > 310. We are completely new to both of these
> > transactions and the other part is I
> > need to develop the implementation guidelines for
> > the document selected. If you
> > have any suggestions about the correct document to
> > use and any help in sharing
> > the document structure is greatly appreciated
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Kiran Dunthuluri
> >
> > EDI consultant
> > Toyota Tsusho America.
> > 502 867 5073
> >
>
> =======================================================================
> To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
