Ocean House Bill of Lading Frequently Asked Questions

Instead of filing against a master bill of lading, OHBOL Release will give importers and brokers the ability to file CBP authorized movements directly against an ocean house bill. The CBP authorized movement at the house bill level can be partial or full bill quantity.

A CBP authorized movement includes Entry/Releases (1C, 4C, and 1B), In-Bonds (1J), and Permits to Transfer (1W).

Yes, importers and brokers still have the option to file a CBP authorized movement against a master bill, for full master bill quantity.

No. Entries will still require the house bill number and master bill number on the submission. The change is that the release notification (1C, 4C, and 1B) will be on the house bill level.

No. There will be no change to simple bill processing. 1Z and 4Z dispositions will not be issued for simple bills.

Yes. The 1Z and 4Z Disposition Codes will be introduced. The 1Z will be used to inform the carrier, and nominated marine terminal operator (MTO), that all house bills under the master bill have a CBP authorized movement and is allowed to be physically released from the marine terminal. The 4Z cancels the 1Z, if one or more of the house bills no longer has an authorized movement.

Yes. The P1, P2, P4 and P5 Disposition Codes will be introduced. The P1 and P2 will be used for PTT arrival messages (BOL and equipment) and the P4 and P5 will be to cancel the P1 or P2, respectively. See Import Ocean CAMIR Appendix D or more specific questions for MTO’s below.

• Ongoing:
  • CERT Testing
• 4/5/2023, 4/19/2023, 5/3/2023 and 5/24/23:
  • CERT Releases
• TBD:
  • Production deployment, including the Container Freight Station (CFS) User Interface (UI)

The carrier, or MTO (as Second Notify Party (SNP)), would need one of the following: 1C, 4C, 1B, 1J, 1W or 1Z for the full bill quantity at the respective master or simple/regular bill.

The carrier, or terminal (as SNP), would need a 1X for conditional authorization to move off-terminal, or for all holds to be removed.

If the CES is not automated, they will still require confirmation from CBP through existing local procedures. If the CES is automated, or if the CES utilizes the CFS User Interface (UI) in ACE, the CES will need a 1X. 

The 1Z / 4Z messages will be attached to the BOL regardless of the discharge port/ocean terminal. It is up to the carrier to nominate the appropriate terminal operator to ensure that party has visibility to those messages. It is the responsibility of the terminal operator to program their terminal operating system to look for these messages for cargo discharged or moved in-bond through their facility.

Note: the 1Z / 4Z is not just for BOLs with “clearance”, but for any CBP authorized movement. And in the case of the 4Z, any BOL where a 1Z was issued and no longer has one of the CBP authorized movements. 

The 1Z and 4Z will have a piece count (similar to a 1C and 4E).

The PTT at the master bill level will need to be at full quantity. If processing is happening at the house bill level, the 1Z will post to the master bill when all house bills have a CBP authorized movement.

The 1Z will not post to the master bill until all house bills are approved for a CBP authorized movement.  Based on the scenario outlined in this question, the MTO would not have anything from CBP to allow movement of the shipment, because not all house bills have an authorized movement.

The 1Z will not post to the master bill until all house bills are approved for a CBP authorized movement.  Based on the scenario outlined in this question, the MTO would not have anything from CBP to allow movement of the shipment, because not all house bills have an authorized movement.

ACE will issue a “rolled-up” 1C to the master bill once all the house bills have been entered and released and the piece counts match the master bill. As long as the MTO is nominated as the Secondary Notify Party (SNP) on the Master bill, or via the carrier’s ACE profile, the MTOs will continue to receive Master bill level messages.

The 1Z/4Z postings will be at the master bill level.  As long as the carrier has nominated the MTO to receive status notifications they will receive those at the master bill level. These postings were to ensure the MTO was aware of movement authorized on shipments they would not have a view into at the house bill level.

The carrier/terminal will need continue monitoring for hold messages, as well as other authorized movements, as they currently do.

As long as there are no holds in place, the terminal may physically release the cargo if the CBP authorized movement is visible at the Master Bill level, or a 1Z in the event the authorized movement is posted at the House Bill level. In the event of a shipment with a hold and a 1X, the terminal may conditionally authorize movement of the shipment to the appropriate CES, per any instructions placed in the 1X and in accordance with established local procedures with the CBP port.

Cargo that has no holds and a CBP authorized movement or 1Z can be physically released from the terminal. Cargo that has a hold AND a 1X indicates that CBP has authorized a conditional movement (transfer for exam) allowing the cargo to move to a CES. Carriers and MTOs will need to continue to check for 1X and 1W messages for any specific instructions from CBP. Terminal operators will need to continue to monitor the hold messages and follow local procedures for the logistics of movements for held cargo.

There are no planned regulatory changes for record keeping. CFS and CES operators will be required to comply with existing record keeping requirements.

Contact the Cargo Security and Controls (CSC) at cscwarehousing@cbp.dhs.gov for cargo release, authorized movement, and restriction policy questions. Contact the Manifest and Conveyance Security Division (MCSD) at OFO-MANIFESTBRANCH@cbp.dhs.gov for cargo declaration, bill of lading, and ISF policy questions. Contact your Client Representative or ACE Support for technical questions.

Q. Continued: if a type 86 entry is going to be filed the shipment is not going to be released off the manifest.  Should the user use this bill type or use legacy bill type 30 HB?   There could be PGA on the Type 86. Is the no PGA consideration only applicable if the shipment was going to be off the manifest? 

A: If using Type 86 entry, the filer must use the bill type 30 since T86 is a type of entry, and 321 is a non-entry release. 

If the broker/importer knows that there could PGA concerns, then 321 releases would not be applicable.  

The VOC will be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate Secondary Notify Parties (SNP) are added to the master bill level, tracking any holds that would prevent physical release, tracking the 1Z or 4Z messages to know when physical release of the goods is either authorized (1Z) or the previous physical release is withdrawn by CBP (4Z), and monitoring for 1X and 1W messages for instructions related to the that particular shipment.

A 1Z will be issued at the Master Bill level when all House Bills under have a CBP authorized movement.

A 4Z will be issued at the Master Bill level after a 1Z has been issued when any of the House Bills under it no longer have an authorized movement.

For a mis-delivery many parties can be held responsible even with current regulations, it just depends on who ultimately causes or contributes to the mis-delivery. If an entity is aware of a hold, or their system fails to recognize a hold, and that party causes or contributes to the held cargo’s release then they can be held liable. 

For Manifest Discrepancy Reporting (MDR), under 19 CFR 4.12, current regulations require the “vessel masters or agents” (the vessel operating carrier) to notify the port director (CBP) of shortages or overages. With that said, all parties within the supply chain have a responsibility to update CBP or the carrier of any discrepancies however, only the vessel master/operator can be held liable until a regulatory change is conducted.

For General Order, under 19 CFR 4.37, current regulations require the “the master or owner of the vessel or the agent thereof” to notify CBP of any baggage or merchandise which has remained at the place of unlading for 15 days. Additionally, the current regulations allow for “any other party to whom custody of the unentered merchandise has been transferred by a CBP authorized permit to transfer or in-bond entry” to require such notification and requirement to file for an authorized movement. Lastly, the bonded warehouse / general order warehouse operator is required to take possession of such baggage or merchandise, unless there is no such authorized or capable facility within the port at which point responsibility to store the merchandise is placed back on the carrier or any other appropriate means.

The goal of Ocean House Bill release is not intended to change liabilities under current regulations, but instead to expedite the physical release of the merchandise from the vessel operating carrier and ocean terminal operator in order to facilitate cargo movement.

Penalties/LD claims for any violation will be issued to the culpable party. This could be the entity who is responsible based on bond requirements, or based on statute or regulation, or to any other party that caused the violation (where regulation does not designate the specific entity). With OHBL release coming it is likely that many regulations will need to be updated to enable CBP to hold parties other than the Vessel Operating Carrier (VOC) responsible, where currently CBP is tied to “the master of the vessel” as a responsible party.

There will be releases sent to the house bill participants; and there will be a rolled-up 1C sent to the master bill participants when all house bills under the master close. In addition, Master-bill level in-bond and PTT notifications will also go to house bill participants.

Automated NVOCCs have the option to self-file so that they do not have to turn over their data to the VOC. If an automated or non-automated NVOCC turns their data over to the carrier to file a Bill of Lading on their behalf as a service then the VOC takes responsibility for that filing.

With the deployment of house bill release the release notifications will be at the house bill level.  The MVOC will receive a 1Z when all house bills are authorized for movement from the terminal and a roll-up single 1C once all house bills have been cleared and piece counts match.

Yes, CBP will send the 1Z or both as appropriate.

The current system, is either “on” or “off” for all carriers. There is no option for this at the carrier level.

Refer to CAMIR Appendix D in the Ocean House BOL release Draft section.

CBP can only penalize/assess LD claims against the party responsible under current applicable laws and regulations. OHBL Release does not specifically require regulatory updates, but regulations related to cargo declaration information and responsible parties may be considered for modernization as part of future regulatory updates. Any change to statute would need to come from Congress and may be contemplated under CBP’s 21st Century Framework (21CCF).

Client Representatives will be prepared to support trade partners with any technical issues they have related to ocean house bill release. Your point of contact will be your assigned Client Representative. For any operational concerns CBP is requesting you reach out to CSC Warehousing or OFO-Manifest Branch. 

Q. Continued: but with HBL release and due to a need to update MDR requirements we will likely work on revising the entities responsible for MDR. Really it comes down to who is responsible for ensuring the manifest (cargo declaration) is accurate? 

A: The current regulations for manifest discrepancies, under 19 CFR 4.12, specifically require “Vessel masters or agents...” to notify CBP of discrepancies. CBP bonded facilities have additional responsibilities to report discrepancies to CBP under the regulations specific to the type of bonded facilities however, the requirement for amending/deleting/adding a bill of lading related to a discrepancy still falls under to the “master or agents.” CBP will be looking to modernize manifest discrepancy reporting through an upcoming project unrelated to ocean house bill release. Ocean House bill release will not change any of the responsibilities of the current parties. Bonded facilities have an additional responsibility to notify CBP of a manifest discrepancy however, it is still the responsibility of the carrier to update the manifest.

Q. Continued: As a VOC, our biggest concern is limiting liabilities at all points, from late advance filing through to and including mis-delivery. 

A: Once the authorized movement is approved, and the bonded carrier takes custody, any violations related to that movement should go against the appropriate party who caused the violation.  

Q. Continued: 5 of the house bills receive a 1C release and the other 5 are not yet released. Those remaining 5 house bills turn into a G.O.   

• Whoo will CBP require to report the Notice of G.O. Eligible Cargo?
• Who will CBP require to action the G.O. cargo and move to G.O. warehouse?

A: Liability for a mis-delivery can be “Every person who directs, assists financially or otherwise, or is in any way concerned…” under 19 USC 1595a(b). 

Liability for Manifest Discrepancy Reporting remains that of the Master of the vessel or their agent under 19 CFR 4.12. CBP will consider updating this regulation at a later date when upcoming regulation changes are planned for 19 CFR Part 4 as a whole. 

Liability for G.O actioning will be required by the VOC up until the point where the cargo leaves the terminal. Once the cargo leaves the terminal then the liability falls on the bonded carrier, on behalf of the NVOCC, who took possession of the bills of lading which do not have an authorized movement at the house bill level. 

Q. Continued: Ex: MBL with 10xHBL.  NVO cuts a PTT or 1J against the MBL to move from the MBL destination (let’s say USLGB) to a deconsolidation warehouse (CFS). During de-van, the CFS warehouse discovers a piece count discrepancy on 1 HBL and prepares an MDR form.  The problem scenario we can envision is this: 

• CFS sends the paper MDR to the NVO. The NVO updates the HBL, but does not notify the VOC. 
• Will CBP send a 1N or 1O to the VOC to indicate there is a manifest discrepancy? 

NVOCC Additional Scenario: Importer discovers a quantity discrepancy at time of devanning at their facility after customs release. Importer or their customs broker files MDR directly without notifying NVOCC or VOC.

A: The bonded facility and the VOC have an obligation to notify CBP of the overage or shortage. If there is piece count discrepancy between the house and the master, a 1Z will not be issued, and if a 1Z was previously issued it will be cancelled by a 4Z. Once CBP becomes aware, and if the BOL has not already been updated, CBP will place the 1N/1O on the bill that is determined to be inaccurate and the bill issuing party will be responsible for updating the BOL. If there is a discrepancy at both the master and house bill levels, CBP will place the appropriate discrepancy status on both bills, respectively. 

Q. Continued: Will CBP HQ prepare guidance for the field offices to handle MDRs in a consistent manner? We see that the local ports widely vary on their acceptance of MDRs, method of delivery (electronic vs paper) and updates to the manifests. Will CBP prepare guidance to all field offices on these scenarios to ensure the local port officers are aware and pursue the correct parties?  (Not just the MBL VOC?) 

A: CBP recognizes the need for updated an transparent MDR guidance to both the trade and internally to ports and field offices and will begin the process for revising and updating MDR regulations and guidance and will provide updates at a later time, separate from OHBOL Release. 

If the VOC amends a master bill (with in-bond movement), the VOC can expect to receive another 1Z to re-affirm the current status. However, if the VOC deletes the master bill (with in-bond movement), OR where there is a piece count discrepancy between the master and the house(s), then a 4Z would be issued to notify the VOC that the movement is no longer authorized. Additionally, if a master bill is filed and QP in-bond is deleted, the master bill would also receive the 4Z notification, for the cancelation of the authorized movement. 

Q. Continued: The carrier systems are programmed to look for the release at the appropriate release port and expects the rolled up (1C) release to reflect the release port, not the discharge port. If we don’t get the rolled up 1C at the release port, our system will not update to reflect the release. What should the carrier expect for the rolled up 1C when cargo is released at a port other than the port of discharge?

Answer: The rolled up 1C will continue to be placed at the Master Bill level for the port of discharge. This is because with OHBOL Release, there could be several releases at several entry ports based on where entry for each House Bill is made. The broker/importer is required to ensure entry is filed at the correct port. After the cargo is authorized to move out of the carriers custody (either from the terminal or the in-bond destination, as applicable), the rolled up 1C is provided to the carrier as an “FYI” that the cargo is was in-fact released.

Q. Continued: This is not to be confused with a subsequent in-bond that is created after an initial in-bond.

Answer: In the event an in-bond movement is posted to the Master Bill and the House Bill, the House Bill will inherit the destination port of the Master Bill. This is because the NVO may not be aware of the VOC in-bond movement and is similar to how it would occur in air manifest under similar circumstances. Note: In the event of a duplicate Master Bill in-bond, the system will accept only the first in-bond, rejecting the duplicate (similar to truck manifest).

All master bills have house bills and the 1Z / 4Z will be issued at the master bill level. If there is no house bill, then the vessel operating carrier will transmit a simple bill instead of a master bill. The 1Z / 4Z will not be issued to a simple bill. There is no change for simple bill processing.

The 1Z/4Z does not eliminate the responsibility of the terminal for tracking holds and hold removals either triggered by CBP or PGAs. The 1Z is based on entry releases, in-bond movements, and Permits to Transfer (PTT) authorizations.  The entry will not be released if FDA Prior Notice is not satisfied, thus the 1Z will not be sent, unless a 1W Permit to Transfer is authorized for respective house bill with an entry hold.

The scenario described in this question describes a simple bill. There is no change to simple bill processing and all authorized movement will be filed and posted against the simple bill.

Both the 1Z and bill of lading hold notification (1H, 7H) will be sent independently.  The 1A and 4A entry intensives will require a 1W PTT or entry release (1B, 4C) before the 1Z will be sent.

The 1X Transfer for Exam allows cargo to move to exam facility while there is still an active hold and provides critical instructions to the carrier/MTO based on local delivery procedures. The 1Z will not post unless all of the cargo has received some type of CBP authorized movement.

No, a 1W does not supersede a 1Z, but a 1W received at the master level for full quantity serves authorization to physically release the shipment. The 1Z indicates that all the cargo on a master bill of lading has received some type of move authorization: entry release, in-bond, or PTT. The 1W Permit to Transfer allows cargo to move to a CFS and provides notification to the carrier/MTO regarding the type of authorized movement.

No, the 1Z will not be generated until the 1W PTT is issued if a 1A entry intensive has been sent.

In-bond movements, entry releases, permit to transfers, and transfers for exam can be posted at the house bill level with the Ocean House Bill Release project.  Requiring a 1W at the master bill level may have eliminated the need for a 1Z in some cases.  However, many times some of the house bills under a master bill may get released at the first Port of Unlading. Therefore, it would not be necessary to move the entire master bill via a PTT.  

This would mean PTTs would be required to be submitted for all the remaining house bills that do not have other movement authorization in order for that particular master bill to be allowed to leave the terminal.  There could be thousands, or even tens of thousands of house bills on a single master bill, and it may be impractical to file that many PTTs at for each house bill, although they will have that capability if it is/does become practical.

The 1Z will have the full master bill quantity.

No, the 1Z will not be sent in the same message with other notifications.  However, the 1Z and the notifications listed above may be sent in close proximity to each other.

The 1Z will not include a FIRMS code. The information provided via the 1X will include the information necessary for the terminal to know who the movement is authorized with.

Both a 1Z and a 1C notifications will be sent at the master bill level.

A 1W will be sent to HBOL participants and the MBOL issuer. The terminal operator will not receive a HBOL PTT. The terminal operator should wait for the 1Z to allow for the movement of cargo. 

No, a 1Z only indicates that a MBOL is permitted to move.

1Z Ocean Terminal Release At the master bill level - Generated when all house bills have CBP authorization to be physically released from the ocean terminal. Carriers and Terminal Operators are still required to monitor for holds that override the authorized movement. Carriers and terminal operators (as 2nd Notify Party) are still responsible for verifying there are no outstanding holds. 1Z cannot be issued if there is no CBP authorization in place on all cargo. 1Z is only issued when ALL bills have CBP authorization (1C/1W/1J/1X). 1Z must be re-issued after a 4Z when all CBP authorizations are present.

The individual release notifications will be at the HBOL level. The Terminal Operator/Master Carrier will receive a rolled up 1C release when all HBOL are released, exported, or seized in addition to the 1Z they have previously received.   

Yes, cargo should be held until appropriate CBP authorized movement.

Trade Partners should contact their CBP Client Representatives to discuss and coordinate testing. 

The MTO will continue to receive CBP authorized movements for simple bills of lading. Additionally, MTO’s will receive a 1Z at the master bill level, if the CBP authorized movement is placed at the house bill level. Lastly, a 1J or 1W for full bill quantity may be optionally posted at the master bill level authorizing the entire master bill (full quantity) to move under that authorization.

When a CBP movement authorization is posted at the master bill level for full bull quantity the MTO is authorized to physically release the shipment. Absent any of those messages at the master bill level, the MTO will need to wait for a 1Z to allow all shipments under the master bill to be physically released.

The MTO will need to continue to wait until there is a CBP authorized movement at the master bill level: either a 1Z if all house bills have a CBP authorized movement, or a CBP authorized movement posted at the master bill level, for full bill quantity

The MTO will need to continue to wait until there is a CBP authorized movement at the master bill level: either a 1Z if all house bills have an authorized movement, or CBP authorized movement posted at the master bill level, for full bill quantity.

A 1X placed at the house bill level will also post at the master bill level and will include the house bill number in the public remarks, which may allow for a specific container to be moved on the 1X, if CBP provides specific instructions. If CBP does not specify instructions/container(s), or places the 1X directly at the master bill level, then the 1X will be considered for the entire master bill full quantity.

Question Continued:

that has been cleared through CBP / relevant agencies and withhold cargo that is not released / under hold.  Will this process be supported by CBP and allow (even under conditions that some cargo is on hold) for containers/s BL quantity to move off dock for de-consolidation and release. 

Answer:

MTOs will need to continue to monitor for holds at the manifest level and wait for a 1X to be posted at the house bill (and visible against the master bill) or directly against the master bill to allow cargo with a manifest hold to depart the terminal. A 1Z will allow the master bill to be physically released from the terminal if there is a CBP authorized movement on all the house bills (which may include a 1W permit to transfer of a house bill with an entry hold), or a 1W at the master bill level for full bill quantity, if there is an entry hold against one of the entries under that master bill.

Question Continuation:

• Are these Dispositions that will be sent for the Master Bill so the MTO will receive? 
• If yes, should MTO configure as “Information only” or add to list of codes to Bypass? (not needed in any Release calculations?) 
• Or are these just for House Bills so the MTO will *not* receive? 

Answer: 

They Disposition Codes will only be visible on the master bill if the PTT is requested for full bill quantity at the master bill level. These Disposition Codes are specifically related to the arrival, or cancelation of the arrival, of a Permit to Transfer and would have no impact on release of cargo from the MTO. 

Question continued:

be a house bill released at the first port of unlading if other HBLs must be released under different circumstances. Can you please clarify? 

Answer:

The PTT transaction under ocean house bill release can be at the master bill level or at the house bill level.  If the PTT is at the master bill level the system requires full bill quantity to allow for movement of the cargo to the CFS for de-consolidation.  The terminals do not receive specific house bill level notifications which is why the 1Z was developed.  Once all house bills have a CBP authorized movement, the master bill will receive a 1Z (which the terminal will also receive as long as the carrier has opted to share their data with that terminal).  In the case where a PTT is issued at the master bill level the system is routing both a 1W and 1Z that the terminal will receive.  It may be a better business decision for the trade to send the entire shipment via the master bill PTT to the CFS for deconsolidation in this scenario. 

As long as the VOC/MTO has a 1Z, or other authorized movement, and no holds in place, the VOC/MTO will be allowed to let the cargo physically move from the terminal without concern. 

The MTO does not have liability for tracking the 4Z after the cargo physically departs from the terminal, based on initial 1Z release, but they may be part of the fact-finding process in the event CBP calls into question when each action occurred, and the MTO / VOC would be expected to maintain records and provide those records/documents in their own interest. 

Note: although the MTO may not have a responsibility to monitor the 4Z after the cargo physically departs the terminal, the carrier may still have a need to monitor this status, particularly in cases of the cargo moving from the terminal under the carrier’s bond. See Q&A in the VOC section above for the VOC’s responsibility. 

No. CBP will not send multiple 1Z’s without first sending a one-to-one 4Z to cancel the preceding and respective 1Z message. This is consistent with other cancelation messaging.

If the original FROB cargo was manifested with a Master-House relationship or changes from a Simple to Master-House relationship the authorized movement of the cargo will fall under OHBL procedures (i.e. will require a 1C, 1W, 1J, or 1X) at the House Bill level in order for the cargo to be physically released from the carrier/ocean terminal. The carrier/terminal operator in this case would receive the 1Z once all House Bills have an authorized movement.

If the shipment was originally on a Simple Bill and remains on a Simple Bill after the itinerary change, there will be no change in how the shipment is released. A 1C, 1W, 1J or 1X will be required against the Simple bill to authorize physical movement of that cargo.

The arrival of a PTT is the responsibility of the bonded carrier named on the PTT movement.

There is no change to this function. A hold on a HBOL results in the MBOL remaining on hold. 

The importer remains responsible for all incurred costs associated with the container.

Both initial and subsequent in-bonds can be added at the Master and/or House BOL levels.

The implementation guides have been updated with the creation of these new advisory codes.  

Only the EDI portion will be available in the CERT testing environment. The CFS User Interface will not be available until the Production Go-Live date. Users will gain access via the ACE Portal through the Facility Operator account type.

Note: Account owners will be responsible for granting the ability to view the container freight station operator view through that user’s profile.

CBP will be publishing a Quick Reference Guides (QRGs) for Ocean House Bill Release and the new Container Freight Station User Interface Guide in October 2022 and additionally, an Informational Notice will be posted in November 2022.

The X12 357 and CAMIR II implementation guides will be updated to add clarification on the use of supplemental in-bonds which do not require the previous in-bond number. Note: there is additional guidance on this process on the 1st page of the “gray notes” section in the TS-357 Implementation Guide (IG).

Question(Part 2): The 1Z can’t be issued until all 5 containers have a 1J.  This is not a subsequent in bond, it’s a straight IT, 5 different truckers picking up for 5 different destinations.  But for a straight in bond (which is provided for in the M12 segment) there doesn’t seem to be any provision for less than full MBL quantity.

The X12 357 and CAMIR II implementation guides will be updated to add clarification on the use of supplemental in-bonds which do not require the previous in-bond number. Note: there is additional guidance on this process on the 1st page of the “gray notes” section in the TS-357 Implementation Guide (IG).

No, the 1X is placed manually by CBP and CES operators must adhere to existing practices and procedures established with CBP for conditional authorized movement of cargo from the facility. 

No, the 1X is placed manually by CBP and CES operators must adhere to existing practices and procedures established with CBP for conditional authorized movement of cargo from the facility. 

The bonded carrier named on the PTT is responsible for reporting the arrival.

Indication of the physical arrival of goods at the zone reported by the operator. (Action Qualifier needs to be done at the Bill of Lading, In-Bond or Container level per CSMS 08-000275.)

If the Ocean bill is manifested as part of a Master/House bill combo in CBP's system, the Trade filer needs to report both the Master Bill and the House Bill in the e214 Admission (FT) transaction. In regards to various FZ transaction filings, please consult the e214 CATAIR Chapter, including its internal Appendix F, for further guidance.

No, the reporting guidance is unaffected by how an In-Bond has been created in the system.

This was addressed in the CATAIR Updates.

That is correct, when reporting the Ocean House Bill of Lading you report only the House Bill.  Ocean House Bills of Lading always have a SCAC as part of the bill identification and the SCAC must be included.

Yes. As these are actions on independent transactions, the order does not matter.

The FTZ Operator must ensure there is CBP authority to admit merchandise into the FTZ.  The logical order would be for the FTZ Operator to report the arrival of a shipment at their door [Goods Arrival] before they accept the merchandise into their inventory control and recordkeeping system. The PTT is a separate and independent CBP transaction.  The arrival of a PTT is the responsibility of the bonded carrier named on the PTT movement.  

At this time it is optional for the FTZ Operator to submit a Goods Arrival [Action Code “I”] transaction.

Action code “L”, Arrive PTT - The arrival of a PTT is the responsibility of the bonded carrier named on the PTT movement.  While the FTZ Operator must ensure there is CBP authority to admit merchandise into the FTZ (i.e., e214 Admission in “Admission Authorized” status, or Direct Deliver authority for the merchandise), this has no impact on the carrier reporting the arrival of shipment at the PTT-named FIRMS Code destination.

The FTZ operator may arrive the goods. The bonded PTT carrier is responsible for arriving the PTT. The arrival of the PTT action will not inhibit the 1C issuance. The 1C goes to the carrier, not the FTZ operator. 

The arrival of the PTT does not automatically trigger the FTZ operator Goods Arrival declaration. Regardless of who transmits the Arrive PTT, the FTZ Operator is responsible for the Goods Arrival transaction. 

Yes, and the quantities should not exceed the quantity of the house bill provided. 

Only the ocean house bill is reported on the PTT request. 

Updates to Appendix D have been published under the Ocean House Bill Release - Draft Chapters adding the P1, P2, P4 and P5 dispositions for PTT arrivals (on Regular/Master/House bill levels) and the 1Z and 4Z dispositions (at Master bill level) for Ocean Terminal Release.

A 1X posted either on the house bill or the master bill will be visible at the master level and will be considered a master-level 1X for full bill quantity, unless CBP specifies less than full quantity in the public remarks or through established local procedures.

The 1X is a standalone exception that allows held cargo to be conditionally authorized to move by the terminal to a CES. The 1Z will not be affected by a 1X. A CES cannot physically release the shipment conditionally authorized under a 1X unless all cargo has a CBP authorized movement (just like an MTO), unless the cargo is being moved back to the MTO. 

There is no specific timeframe for a 1W to be arrived in ACE. However, the 1W does not stop the 15-day timeframe before the cargo is subject to G.O.

The biggest impact will be the availability to see the house-level release within the CFS UI for both automated and non-automated CFS. 

If a PTT is issued, that PTT must be arrived (received) or canceled. There is no deadline for when this must occur, but the PTT does not stop the 15-day timeframe before the cargo is subject to G.O. Custodial Bond conditions found in 19 CFR Part 113 cover obligations of entities moving bonded cargo and seeing it safely to the named bonded destination location.