![]() If the buyer did so, it would be – unless, of course, it was simply following the buyer’s instructions in this regard. In that case, the seller would determine the international movement, so it would not be a routed transaction. As with EXW, these terms allow for the seller to make those arrangements on the buyer’s behalf. The hallmark of all “F” terms (FOB, FAS, FCA) is that the buyer is responsible for the international freight movement, including risks and costs. If, however, the seller made the freight arrangements on its buyer’s behalf, it would be a regular export. Since the buyer is responsible for determining the freight’s international routing, this scenario qualifies as a routed export transaction. EXW also places export clearance responsibility on the buyer. That may or may not be true, depending on the actual arrangements between the parties.įor example, in an ExWorks sale, the buyer is responsible for transportation and risk of loss from the seller’s loading dock through the final delivery point. ![]() When the routed export rules were adopted in 2000, there was a common myth in the trade that the Census definition tracked the trade term chosen for the transaction. The rule’s rationale, as I understand it, is to ensure that some person located in the United States has responsibility for the EEI filing (aka “the fall guy” if something goes wrong). agent to facilitate the export of items from the United States and to prepare and file EEI.” In my opinion, a more complete description is found in the Federal Register notice requesting comments: “Routed export transactions are transactions in which the Foreign Principal Party in Interest (FPPI) controls the movement of the goods out of the country.”Īn FPPI cannot file an EEI itself because it is located outside the United States, hence the agent requirement. The Foreign Trade Regulations define a routed export as one “in which the authorizes a U.S. Who Controls the Export Movement of the Merchandise? In particular, the Census Bureau is interested in comments regarding the definition of a routed export transaction as well as the responsibilities of parties in routed export transactions.” This provides interested parties with an opportunity to request clarifications to the rules. Our friends at Census recently requested “ public comments to perform a review of the requirements governing routed export transactions. Perhaps for that reason, there are frequent misunderstandings about whether an export is routed or not. The concept of a routed transaction was entirely made up by Census, and from what I can tell is not otherwise used in the commercial world. Whenever an EEI is filed, it must state whether the export is “routed” or not. Sure, there are a few exclusions, and most shipments to Canada get a pass, but an EEI is required for the vast majority of transactions. There’s almost no getting around filing an Electronic Export Information for exports from the United States.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |