Keelung Customs stated that according to Article 37 of the Customs Act, goods sent abroad for repair must be reimported within one year from the day following the date of export clearance. If there are factual reasons, a written request for a six-month extension may be submitted to the Customs before the expiration of the deadline. In such cases, import duties may be assessed based on the valuation of repair costs. If reimportation is delayed beyond the deadline, duties will be assessed based on the value of general imported goods. The aforementioned “date of reimportation” refers to the date of arrival at a port of entry in the country as defined in Article 6 of the Enforcement Rules of the Customs Act.

Keelung Customs explained that to facilitate the confirmation of the identity of the exported and reimported goods, the aforementioned goods sent abroad for repair should have their item name, quantity, specifications, and a declaration stating that they were sent abroad for repair detailed on both the export and import declarations. Additionally, the nature of the damage or defects requiring repair should be stated on the export declaration, and the statistical method should be reported as 7M (domestic goods exported for repair) or 9M (foreign goods returned from overseas repair).

Keelung Customs further explained that recently, some businesses have reported reimported goods for duty assessment based on repair costs. However, customs inspections have revealed that these goods were not the original goods sent abroad for repair but were instead replaced with new goods by foreign manufacturers due to their inability to repair the original goods. Therefore, Article 37 of the Customs Act does not apply in such cases, and import duties should be assessed based on the value of general imported goods. If there is any underpayment of taxes due to false declarations, the Customs Smuggling Act will be applied.

Keelung Customs finally reminded businesses that if they wish to assess import duties for goods sent abroad for repair based on repair costs, they must reimport the goods within the statutory period and confirm before customs clearance that they are the original goods sent for repair to avoid additional taxes or penalties.

Contact person: Chen Cheng-Hsuan, Wudu Branch, Tel: (02) 8648-6220 ext. 2711

資料來源: Ministry of Finance R.O.C.

 labor strike crisis is brewing among port workers along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing tens of thousands of dockworkers, has halted contract negotiations with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) over issues of port automation technology. The union is protesting the use of automated gate systems that do not require union labor to operate, claiming it violates existing labor agreements.

The ILA’s main demands include preventing automation from replacing workers’ jobs, securing similar wage increases to those achieved by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) on the West Coast, and ensuring that new terminal jobs are assigned to union members. The current contract is set to expire on September 30th, and the union has stated it will not extend the contract deadline, meaning a strike is likely if a new agreement is not reached by then.

If a strike occurs, it will have a significant impact on the supply chain, potentially causing delays and increased costs for imported goods, negatively affecting multiple industries, including retail. Businesses could face inventory shortages and price increases. Additionally, past strike actions have led to increased airfreight demand as companies seek alternative solutions to avoid disruptions in ocean services.

This strike crisis highlights the conflict between port automation and workers’ interests, the union’s tough stance, and the complexities of labor contract negotiations, foreshadowing uncertainty in U.S. port operations over the coming months.

Here are some additional points to note:

• The article provides a concise and informative overview of the potential labor strike at U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast ports.
• It highlights the key issues at stake, including concerns over automation, wage increases, and job security.
• The article discusses the potential impact of a strike on the supply chain and businesses.
• It concludes by emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the situation and the potential for disruptions to port operations.

As uncertainty hangs over Canada’s rail system being shut down by a strike, shipping lines on the transpacific trade have begun to cancel calls to the country’s main pacific gateways, Vancouver and Prince Rupert.

“Anticipation of a strike keeps carriers on their toes, with some already taking significant action to omit, blank, or swap calls into Vancouver in June and beyond,” an eeSea trade update said.

“There are 14 port swaps and diversions away from Canada into US gateway ports confirmed from week 24 onward, as well as three completed since mid-May,” it added.

Of the forthcoming blank sailings announced through to the end of week 31 and the beginning of August, six are on Zim’s ZPX service, which is now not scheduled to call at Vancouver until at least week 31.

During the same period, MSC’s Chinook, SM Lines’ PNS and THE Alliance’s PN4 service will all blank Vancouver once, as will the Ocean Alliance’s PNW1 and PNW4 strings, and its PNW3 service twice.

“A whopping 10 of these blanks were announced in the past month alone,” eeSea noted.

At Prince Rupert, just three blanks – one each on the THE Alliance’s PN4 and the Ocean Alliance’s PSW2 and PNW2 services – have so far been announced for the period.

The liner analyst added that ports on Canada’s Atlantic coast were expecting just seven blanks – three of are Tropical Shipping’s three-vessel Canada-Caribbean loop, as the 1,150 teu Tropic Lissette has been undergoing scheduled maintenance.

Zim’s CFX, which offers a feeder service from MSC’s Kingston transhipment hub to Miami, New York and Halifax, is also set to blank three sailings during the period, and THE Alliance’s Asia-North America east coast EC5 service is set to blank its sailing in week 31.

“Further delay to the strike action, and/or government intervention, means an indefinite extension of measures taken by carriers to predict this impact, creating a persistent shadow of doubt on the weeks ahead,” eeSea warned.

In happier news for Canadian importers, however, it noted that THE Alliance’s EC5 service had seen a strong improvement in schedule reliability, after “these past few weeks have seen a considerable reshuffling of its vessels and slot assignments”, which had led to delays coming down from a minimum of 20 days on the first (North America) call at Halifax, to “10 days or fewer from last week onwards”.

News from: https://theloadstar.com/blank-sailings-on-the-rise-at-canadian-ports-as-carriers-fret-over-rail-strike/

Maersk has announced a change in the way it will bill customers for fuel-related surcharges, with the introduction of its Fossil Fuel Fee (FFF).

Announced today (Friday 31 May), the FFF groups together two previous charges – its bunker adjustment factor surcharge (BAF) and its low sulphur surcharge (LSS) – under a single banner.

In a customer advisory, the Danish shipping giant said: “Our goal is to bring ease and connectivity to your logistics.

“We believe that the simplification to one surcharge related to fuel on ocean will offer multiple benefits. The FFF Tariff will be available from Q3 2024. In other words, it will be effective from 1 July 2024.”

It noted that as of 1 July, all new contractual quotes that were over three months’ validity would be quoted with FFF.

Pre-existing contracts under the old BAF and LSS surcharging schemes will remain in place until their point of renewal – meaning BAF and LSS tariff rates would continue to be published – thereafter transitioning to FFF.

However, commentators were quick to note that precise details of the FFF had yet to be made public, with no indication of the surcharge calculation methodology that would be used.

One, speaking to The Loadstar, even suggested that the move was geared towards helping Maersk recoup “the huge extra cost of methanol,” adding that it sounded very much “like a clever way to wrap up this cost”.

They added: “As always, the devil will be in the detail when the charge is revealed. I think many shippers will be suspicious, particularly when carriers are clearly taking advantage.

“The other question is: will the FFF apply to shipments on scrubber-fitted ships and/or LNG-powered vessels operated by Maersk’s Gemini partner Hapag? It will be interesting to see the reaction from shippers.”

NEWS FROM: https://theloadstar.com/maersks-new-surcharge-strategy-raises-eyebrows/