We bring to your attention an important update from HMRC regarding changes to the warehousekeeper authorisation and approval process, effective from 1 April 2026.

As part of preparations for the introduction of Vaping Products Duty (from 1 October 2026), HMRC is modernising and digitalising the application process for excise Warehouse keepers.

 What is changing?

A new online application system will replace the current paper-based process, allowing businesses to:

• Apply for warehouse keeper authorisation and premises approval in one place
• Submit applications for Vaping Products Duty and Vaping Duty Stamps approval
• Use a new online amendment form for existing approvals

This change will impact both new and existing warehouse keepers dealing with alcohol, tobacco, and vaping products.

What do you need to do?

No immediate action is required before 1 April 2026. The new process will apply to:

• Businesses applying to become ware housekeepers
• Existing ware housekeepers seeking to amend approvals or add new premises

These changes are designed to provide a more streamlined, secure and efficient application journey, replacing the current postal system.

Feeling concerned? We strongly encourage you to review the full update to understand how these changes may affect your business.

Adopted in 1863 in order to fight against the frauds committed during the Civil War, the False Claims Act (FCA[1]) progressively imposed as one of the most powerful legal instruments of the United States for protecting public finances. Long confined to the public markets and the healthcare sector (Medicare/Medicaid), this law in recent years has experienced widening of its field of application. Imports are now seen as the potential target for the application of the False Claims Act.

A jurisprudential evolution by the Court of Appeals of the 9^th Circuit has indeed recently validated the application of the FCA to shortcomings related to customs declarations. This decision is part of a greater dynamic of extension of controls and civil pursuits in the field of international trade and is in coherence with the methods of commercial intimidation/negotiation of the Trump administration.

The legal foundations of the False Claims Act

The under evaluation of merchandise; The False Claims Act, codified under title 31 of the Code of the United States (§?3729 and following), prohibits anyone to voluntarily submit a false declaration or a fraudulent claim in sight to obtain undue payments or advantages from the federal government. Two key characteristics make it a formidable tool:

1.  “Qui tam” [2] actions: According to American law, an individual (called a relator) can report a fraud in the name of the government and engage in a civil case. In the event of success, they then receive a significant share of the recovered amounts (up to 30%).
2. Severe Sanctions: The defendant can be condemned to civil fines (more than $20,000 per violation) and triple the damages (treble damages), which makes the potential amounts colossal.

Historically focused on military procurement, the FCA has evolved to apply to fraud in healthcare, education, taxation… and now, international trade.

Imports, a new area of vigilance

In recent years, federal authorities—most notably the Department of Justice—have shown an increasing interest in false customs declarations. This change of course results from at least three factors:

• The rise in power of punitive tariffs within the context of trade tensions (particularly with China).
• The desire to strengthen economic sovereignty through a strict application of tariff rules.
• The need to efficiently sanction fraudulent behaviors where the traditional customs regime shows its limits.

Until recently, these offenses were almost exclusively from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in this context of administrative procedures or penalties. But today the federal administration considers that any false declaration resulting in the government being deprived of revenue—notably customs duties—can be prosecuted under the FCA.

This concerns, among others, the following practices:

• The use of an incorrect tariff code (HS code);
• The falsification of origin to bypass specific rights;
• The manipulations of invoices between subsidiaries or commercial partners.

Return to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals case: a turning point?

The Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit has recently validated the application of the FCA to fraudulent customs declarations. The stop was carrying on a company accused to have intentionally under evaluated the value of the imported merchandise, thus reducing the rights owed to the American Treasury.

The company challenged the competence of the FCA in this context, arguing that the customs sanctions were exclusively the responsibility of the CBP. But the Court rejected this argument, considering that the submission of a false declaration having a financial impact on the State is indeed within the scope of the False Claims Act. This reasoning paves the way for an increase of civil lawsuits in cases that were previously limited to customs law.

-A concrete example: the Sigma Corporation affair-

In an article from 2024, the US law firm Hogan Lovells cited a landmark case: Island Industries Inc. v. Sigma Corporation. In this file, the federal government pursued Sigma Corp (denounced by a competitor- Island Industries Inc) accused to have diverted more than 8 million dollars in anti-dumping duties, by deliberately sorting Chinese import products under a tariff position of a category not subject to duties.

“In 2017, Island Industries … filed a sealed complaint under the FCA alleging that a business competitor, Sigma, and others made false statements on customs forms to avoid antidumping (AD) duties on welded outlets imported from China, resulting in a deprivation to the U.S. government of approximately US$200 million since 2004.”
— Hogan Lovells, 2024

The federal jury has retained the existence of false declarations in customs on two points:

• The incorrect designation of products as “steel couplings” rather than “welded outlets”[3] ;
• The false claim that these products were not subject to antidumping duties.

The sanctions were severe: the customs sanction of 8 million dollars was tripled in accordance with the regime of the FCA, to which civil penalties have been added, for a total of more than 26 million dollars.

This affair confirms that the deliberate bypass of customs obligations (tariffs for this specific case) is no longer simply a customs fraud but can be requalified as a fraudulent claim under the FCA, with all the consequences that this entails.

Practical consequences for importers

This evolution of American law imposes a profound change of approach for businesses. The risks are no longer only economic or administrative; they become legal, financial, and reputational.

• The risk of contentious matters is increasing significantly, including at the initiative of internal or external whistleblowers;
• The customs practices must be secured: Both on the analysis of the customs classification of the imported product, only on the determination of the customs value, and on the validity of the product’s certificates of origin: each key element of an import customs declaration must be able to be documented and justified;
• The internal procedures of an importer (only responsible for what is included in the declaration filed with customs in their name) must exist, be documented and applied and the related documentation to the imported products must be duly preserved, robust, traceable, and available in case of an audit or judiciary inquiry.

Multinational companies must therefore strengthen their internal customs compliance programs and fully integrate this risk into their legal risk mapping.

Perspectives and recommendations

The trend is clear: the Department of Justice intends to continue and amplify the use of the FCA in order to recover the amounts owed to the Treasury, even outside traditional spheres (healthcare, defense, education). International trade, due to its complexity and its volumes, is a logical target in the current geopolitical context.

As such, the companies active in exporting to the United States should:

• Proceed to an urgent verification of the related clause to the applicable Incoterms Rule in each past contract with an American client?

Companies making imports and -as an “importer of record”- submitting import customs declarations with the US customs (CBP) should in their case:

• Proceed to an urgent verification of the related clause to the applicable Incoterm Rule in each past contract with a foreign supplier;
• Verify the terms of the contracts binding them to their “customs brokers”;
• Proceed with the preventive audits of their declarative import practices to the US (internally produced or by the customs brokers);
• Set up reinforced internal controls on the supply chain in order to verify the reliability of customs data used and, another part, to identify the negligent comfort delegations to customs brokers, and this, continuously;
• Ensure the competence of the internal staff in charge of the customs operations or monitoring external declarants and, if applicable, set up an official training policy and schedule for the staff in customs matters;
• Integrate the specific risks of the False Claims Act into the program or the internal procedures of customs compliance of the business/group;
• Establish internal alert channels, to detect irregularities before they become public.

Conclusion

The False Claims Act, apparent relic of the 19th century, imposes itself today as a strategic tool by the US authorities to fight against commercial and tax fraud and whose application is now extended to the customs field.

For importers, the challenge is now clear: not to underestimate the civil scope of customs non-compliance, under penalty of seeing oneself exposed to the serious financial consequences—even a consequential lawsuit.

Thus, the temptation to resort to the method of determining import customs value known as “First Sale Value” must be approached with care and caution and should only be considered after ensuring that the documentation of the entire supply chain justifies the legitimate use of this method of determining value[4]… otherwise, the importer would clearly be in the potential line of fire of the False Claims Act!

Article by Bertrand Rager, with contributions by Belle Nenadov and Elias Mekonnen

Useful Sources:

• Hogan Lovells – Imports and the False Claims Act (2024)
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-III/chapter-37/subchapter-III
• Customs and Border Protection – Official site
• https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act

• https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/05/multinational-company-customs-enforcement-false-claims-act-risks-part-iii/?

[1] Not to be confused with the Incoterm rule Free Carrier/ FCA

[2] Abbreviation of “qui tam pro domino rege legem servavit”, which means “who acts in his own name, but for the benefit of the king.” This phrase reflects the idea that an individual can take legal action for the good of the State.

[3] A “welded outlet” is a pipe fitting designed to be welded to seamless or continuous-weld pipes, allowing for a branch to be created in a main line, typically manufactured by hot forging and machining, and capable of withstanding high pressures (16 to 20 bars). Whereas a “steel coupling” is a sleeve made of steel, often stainless steel or carbon steel, to ensure strength, durability, and corrosion resistance, and that connects two elements, such as pipes or rotating shafts, to ensure efficient transfer of force or fluids.

[4] Without forgetting the restrictions on the use of the transactional value for the transactions between related parties unless it can be demonstrated that the declared customs value is “at arm’s length,” nor the alternative methods of calculating customs value (deductive, computed, fallback and others) provided for by US regulations, as well as the obligation of “due diligence and efforts to right one’s wrongs” in this matter and the distinctly American possibility of self-remedy within the 300-day period granted by the US practice to correct a customs declaration, a correction which may be accompanied, where applicable, by a “voluntary disclosure” in order to avoid a catastrophe.

This table is only indicative and does not exempt operators from carrying out a classification analysis of their products in accordance with the applicable regulations.

It is available on the Europa CIRCABC website.

The EU Customs Reform B RAGER

• National measures to combat sanctions circumvention

The United States[2] and the United Kingdom[3] have followed suit by publishing updated sanctions regulations (with new entities and individuals targeted) and best practice guides for exporters. The EU is expected to adopt an 11th sanctions package in the coming weeks, adding new products to the ban on transit through Russia, a tool to combat circumvention of sanctions and a ban on exports to Russian “phantom” entities and third countries that re-export to Russia[4].

The aim is to reduce exports via intermediaries, by sanctioning entities and third countries strongly suspected of supplying and contributing to the development of the Russian military-industrial complex.

• Recommendations for exporting companies

It is recommended that companies put in place due diligence measures (i.e. vigilance procedures) to assess the risks of non-compliance before any export. The verification, more commonly known as “screening”, of recipient companies and end-users must now be systematic. It is imperative to ensure that the recipient company does not reship the goods to a Russian end-user under sanction. In addition, it is advisable for exporters to include a non-re-export clause (NRC) or an end-use certificate (EUC) in their sales contracts to ensure that the goods are not re-exported to a sanctioned Russian end-user.

In addition, exporters are advised to include a non-re-export clause (NRC) or an end-use certificate (EUC) in their sales contracts in order to commit their customers not to re-export the goods to sanctioned persons, and to justify their good faith to their authorities or even to their commercial partners and thereby protect themselves from possible fines[5].

The American[6], British[7] and European[8] administrations have listed “red flags” to alert companies. They concern all parties involved in the transaction (including the customer, the end-user, sometimes even carriers or intermediaries), the product being exported, and the country or countries involved in the export.

In particular, the following indicators can be considered as warning signals to be taken into account before exporting:

• The reluctance of the customer to provide accurate information on use and end-user,

• Disproportionate delivery costs,

• The use of complex arrangements to conceal the recipient (shell companies, multiple intermediaries),

• Inaccurate description of the product in the commercial and financial documentation

• Abnormal shipping routes via countries with active trade relations with Russia,

• Countries of destination with weak export control legislation.

Should you have any questions about sanctions or sanctions circumvention and due diligence measures feel free to contact the lawyers at CUSTAX & LEGAL.

Paris, 24 May 2023.

[1] Official G7 Leaders’ Communiqué on Ukraine, 19 May 2023 (Online)

[2] U.S. Department of State press release, 19 May 2023 (Online)

[3] UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office press release, 19 May 2023 (Online)

[4] Press release by the President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen, 9 May 2023 (Online)

[5] Notice to economic operators, importers and exporters (2022/C 145 I/01) (Online)

[6] Red Flags indicators, BIS (Online)

[7] Notice of UK Department for Business & Trade, 22 May 2023 (Online)

[8] Annex 2 to European Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/1318 on internal compliance programmes for the control of trade in dual-use items, 30 July 2019 (Online)

This table is only indicative and does not exempt operators from carrying out a classification analysis of their products in accordance with the applicable regulations.

It is available on the Europa CIRCABC website.

However, after a certain period of time following the entry into force of the various packages of sanctions, can force majeure still be claimed for ongoing contracts?

We shall focus on force majeure claims in the context of international sanctions under French law (I), before looking at force majeure in the context of international arbitration (II) and analysing the issues relating to the temporality of force majeure claims (III).

I-              Claiming force majeure in the context of sanctions against Russia under French law

Under French law, force majeure is governed by Article 1218 of the Civil Code, which states that ” force majeure is constituted in contractual matters when an event beyond the debtor’s control, which was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the conclusion of the contract and whose effects cannot be avoided by appropriate measures, prevents the debtor from performing his obligation“. Thus, if the conditions of unforeseeability, exteriority and irresistibility are met, force majeure can be claimed, so that when the impediment is temporary, contractual performance is suspended and when the impediment is definitive, the contract is terminated by law. However, as the French Court of Cassation very recently recalled, ‘whereas, in any event, only an event of an unforeseeable, irresistible and external nature constitutes force majeure; […] these characteristics are assessed in concreto’[1].

Regarding the French co-contractor, at the beginning of the invasion, he found himself facing an unpredictable situation, since no one had foreseen the extent of the international sanctions adopted following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. He is also confronted with a situation of externality and irresistibility, since the situation exceeds his control, and he is unable to take measures to avoid the effects of the sanctions.

By contrast, the French Court of Cassation, faced with a force majeure claim by an Iranian bank targeted by UN sanctions, ruled in a decision of 10 July, 2020, that “freezing the assets of a person or entity affected by this measure because of its activities does not constitute a case of force majeure for the person who is subject to it, for lack of exteriority”[2]. Consequently, the Russian co-contractor who is nominally targeted by restrictive measures will not be able to claim force majeure, since he will not meet the condition of exteriority.

II-             Claiming force majeure in the context of international sanctions before international arbitration courts

Concerning sales between companies, Article 79 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods signed in Vienna in 1980, to which both France and Russia are parties, states that “a party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it, or its consequences”.

In particular, this definition has been reproduced in similar terms in Article 7.1.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. As explained in the Preamble of the Principles, although the Principles are not binding per se, “they shall be applied when the parties have agreed that their contract be governed by them. They may be applied when the parties have agreed that their contract be governed by general principles of law, the lex mercatoria or the like”.

Thus, the criteria of force majeure under French law are mirrored at the international level, so that once again, the adoption of sanctions against Russia may, depending on the particular situation, constitute force majeure.

III-           Validity of the unforeseeability factor several months after the invasion

However, the question of unforeseeability arises in relation to contracts concluded after the invasion of Ukraine concerning areas which were not subject to sanctions at the time of conclusion, but which later became so.

Indeed, several arbitral awards of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) have held that, as the relevant export controls came into force before the conclusion of the contract, the factor of unforeseeability was lacking for the situation to qualify as force majeure[3].

Consequently, it is then necessary to determine at which point one can consider that one is faced with an unforeseeable situation. In the medical field, for example, it was considered that the dengue epidemic was recurrent and therefore predictable[4] or that the arrival of the H1N1 virus had been widely predicted even before the implementation of health regulations[5]. Regarding the Coronavirus pandemic, it was recognised that it was not a force majeure situation per se but that certain situations arising from it could be considered as force majeure due to their unforeseeability, exteriority and irresistibility[6]. This can partly be explained by the unprecedented scale of restrictions adopted in response to the pandemic.

Therefore, in the context of the war in Ukraine, in the current absence of case law on the matter, it is important to note that such drastic restrictive measures have never been adopted in a similar context. Therefore, in addition to the war itself, the fait du Prince[7] resulting from it can be deemed force majeure, even several months after the entry into force of the first sanctions measures taken following the invasion of Ukraine. Thus, it is possible to consider that even for contracts signed after the invasion of Ukraine relating to areas that a person acting in good faith could not have imagined would be affected by new sanctions, force majeure could be characterised.

Conclusion

  In conclusion, it is essential to recall that the force majeure claim to justify the non-performance of the provisions of a contract requires the presence of factors of exteriority, irresistibility and unforeseeability, which are analysed on a case-by-case basis. In the context of the war in Ukraine, the sanctions adopted against Russia were of such unprecedented magnitude that it would be possible to consider that the different waves of sanctions were all unforeseeable.

            Regardless, it must be stressed that Regulation (EU) 833/2014 establishes an “anti-claims shield”[8] in the event of litigation or arbitration, which as highlighted in the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal of 15 February 2000 in the case of La Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Libyan Arab Airlines, does not render the dispute non-arbitrable[9]. Accordingly, Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) 833/2014 specifies that “no claims in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which has been affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed under this Regulation […] shall be satisfied”.

            Substantially, companies that continue to do business with Russia are advised to assess the compliance of their current contracts with the various sanctions and to ensure that clauses relating to the impact of international sanctions are included when concluding new contracts.

_________________________________________________

[1] Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 7 décembre 2022, n°21-12.604.

[2] Cour de cassation, Ass. Plén., 10 juillet 2020 n° 18-18.542 et 18-21.814.

[3] Recueil des sentences arbitrales de la CCI 2016-2020, Affaires 2216, 3093/3100 et 3740, Kluwer Law International, 15 janvier 2022.

[4] Cour d’appel de Nancy, 1ère chambre, 22 novembre 2010, n° 09/00003.

[5] Cour d’appel de Besançon,  8 janv. 2014, n° 12/02291.

[6] Cour d’appel de Colmar, 6ème chamabre, 16 mars 2020, n° 20/01142 ; n° 20/01143 et n° 20/01206.

[7] French legal concept used in French administrative law to designate a measure taken by the administration which has an impact on a contract to which it is party or more broadly, an arbitrary act by a government, head of state or other public authority.

[8] Pierrick Le Goff, Thierry Titone, Matthieu Dary, Natalia Ivanytska et Thibaut Brenot, « Sanctions contre la Russie : enjeux juridiques et impacts contractuels », Degaullefleurance [en ligne], 18 mars 2022.

[9] Decision of the Québec Court of Appeal [2000] R.J.Q. 717, J.Q. No. 410.

In France, only two operators will be involved in this release 1 scheme:

• the national postal operator and
• one express courier company with its hub in France.

1 – General context and objectives of ICS2

The ICS 1 system was implemented as part of the safety and security measures instituted after the Sept.11  terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, to ensure the risk analysis of goods upstream of their arrival in the customs territory of the Union, or even before long-distance containers are loaded, whatever the mean of transportation (air, sea, rail and road) on the basis of an entry summary declaration electronic (ENS). The ICS1 system has been in force since 1st January 2011(*).

The European ICS2 system is now  intended to replace the current ICS1 system, in view of security requirements and of the provisions of the Union Customs Code in force since 1st May 2016.

1.1 The main objectives of ICS2 are to enable European Union (EU) customs authorities to :

– better identify high-risk consignments and intervene at the most appropriate point in the chain of supply,

– strengthen the protection of EU citizens and of the internal market against the threats ar regards safety and security,

– facilitate the cross-border passage of most legitimate trade,

– simplifying the exchange of information between economic operators and customs authorities in the EU.

1.2 The main changes are as follows :

– the submission of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) (**) prior to the loading of consignments on an aircraft for aviation security purposes – implementation of “do not load”;

– removal of exemptions (postal and express consignments of negligible value) with the exception of consignments of Correspondence (***);

– additional data (buyer/seller) only for maritime and river, road and rail transportation ;

– the implementation of “multiple filing” for maritime and air transportation;

– the setting up of a consultation (“referral data”) on the data of the summary declarations (ENS) after allocation of the Movement Reference Number (MRN) ;

– the possibility to invalidate the entry summary declaration (ENS) ;

– Better identification for the treatment of Authorised Economic Operators (AEOs) (implementation of mutual recognition, notification of controls before the arrival of goods on the customs territory of the Union.

1.3 The filing of the ENS in the ICS2 framework:

The obligation for filing the ENS, in a general way, is the responsibility of the carrier, as is the operation of ICS1. The latter is responsible for the transport of goods into the customs territory of the Union. The ENS may be filed  by the importer or by the consignee of the goods or by any person capable of presenting the goods to the customs services. In practice, the vast majority of ENS will be deposited by the carrier and other persons involved in the supply chain.

The ENS can be filed:

– either in the form of a complete ENS by the carrier,

– or in the form of several pieces of ENS “multiple filing” filed by the other players involved in the maritime or air logistics chain. The aggregation of these messages will be carried out by the European customs system by means of transport documents (air waybill, sea bill of lading). Each actor being responsible for the message he/she sends.

Depending on the type of flow (express consignments, postal consignments, air freight, sea freight) and transport (road, rail), ENS data sets (partial or complete) have been defined in accordance with Annex B to the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/234 of 7 December 2020 amending the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.

The deadlines for the submission of ENS declarations vary according to the modes of transport and the duration of the transport according to the ICS1 rules renewed in the UCC.

1.4 New provisions in the context of air transport :

In the case of air transport, two ENS risk analysis will be carried out by the customs authorities :

– the first one before the loading of the goods onboard an aircraft for aviation security purposes, in support of a PLACI ENS (minimum data set “7+1”), “bomb search” according to civil aviation rules.

 This ENS must be filed, as soon as possible, prior to the loading of the goods into the aircraft. This covers all goods, i.e. express shipments, express consignments, goods in transit and goods in transit, postal consignments and conventional cargo freight;

– the second before the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of the Union in support of a ENS (partial or complete) for safety and security purposes.

2 – Principle: a central European system (“central base”)

Due to the strategic importance and scope of this European ICS2 project, its design has been taken over by the European Commission (DG TAXUD), in collaboration with the Member States (creation of a central database (CR) (****) and a shared operator interface (STI) (*****), and has led to the creation of the presentation of a project divided into three versions (release 1, 2 and 3) described under point III below.

Economic operators will access the central European system via a single entry portal (ITS). The access modalities and certification are defined by the European Commission (DG TAXUD). Communications between States and economic operators will be made through the said European system.

This European system will receive all the ENS filed by economic operators and will transmit them to the EU entry point Member State and to the Member States involved in the supply chain for risk analysis for safety and security purposes. These results will be communicated to the EU entry point Member State responsible for the final decision.

The main functionalities of the central database (CR) :

– processing of ENS (partial or complete with new data sets provided for in Annex B to the Commission delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/234 of 7 December 2020 amending the delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 ;

– the harmonised admissibility ;

– reconciliation of partial messages with a link key;

– storage ;

– notification of arrival of the means of transport;

– the life cycle of the ENS, followed by the customs presentation of the goods ;

– notification of controls for “safety/security” AEOs;

– requirements for customs control.

3 – Timetable for the deployment of the European ICS2 system

The European ICS2 system will be operational in three versions in accordance with the EU Customs Code work programme (see Commission (EU) Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/ 2151). Each version concerns different economic operators and modes of transport (air, maritime, road and rail). Economic operators will start filing entry summary declarations under ICS2 depending on the type of services they provide.

ICS1 will operate in parallel with ICS2 until the deployment of version 2 (airborne vector – 01 March 2023) and of version 3 (road, sea and rail vector – 01 March 2024). After the deployment of version 3, ICS1 will be phased out after a transition period of 200 days.

The first version “release 1” covers express and postal shipments with the exception of shipments via correspondence before loading the aircraft for aviation security purposes (ENS PLACI).

In France, two economic operators are concerned by “release 1”: the national postal operator and an express delivery company with its logistics hub in France.

A practical guide has been drawn up by the Commission and the Member States on the modalities of exchanges as regards aviation security – “referrals” between economic operators and customs authorities.

It is available on : https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/ics2-eu-guidance-air-cargo-security-referral-protocols_en.pdf

The economic actors concerned by the different versions analyse as follows:

Version 1: express carriers and postal operators based in the customs territory of the Union who ship goods to the EU by air will have to file the ENS PLACI before the loading of the aircraft, for aviation security purposes.

Version 2: Postal operators, express delivery companies, air carriers and freight forwarders who ship  goods to the EU by air will have to file the ENS PLACI before the loading of the aircraft, and then provide all ENS data prior to the aircraft’s arrival at the EU port of entry to safety and security purposes.

Version 3: Operators transporting goods (including postal and express consignments) by means of the maritime, river, road and rail transport companies will have to file the ENS before the arrival of the goods at the point of entry into the EU Customs territory and, for long-distance containerised goods, before the ship is loaded,  for safety and security purposes.

4 – Integration of ICS2 in the EU goods entry process

The entry of goods into the EU is a 5-step customs process that constitutes pre-clearance:

1 – the submission of the ENS;

2 – notification of arrival of the means of transport;

3 – the notification of presentation of the goods, in response to this notification, which authorises the goods to be unloaded in a place approved of by customs;

4 – the temporary storage of the goods;

5 – the placing of the goods under a customs procedure.

The ICS2 process covers three stages out of the five listed above: the lodging of the ENS, the notification of arrival of the means of transport and the presentation of the goods to customs. This last stage allows the notification of the ENS to the central base and, if necessary, the safety and security checks to be carried out.

As a reminder: in France, ICS1 already covers these three stages (via the Automate de Sûreté (AS) tele-services and DELTA P ) and complies with the provisions of the UCC.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

(*) ICS Circular 7052 of 15 February 2015 (Administrative Decision 15-010), published under the Community Customs Code that is still in force, until the deployment of the ICS2 programme.

(**) Preloading Advance Cargo Information

(***) Letters, postcards, ecograms and printed matter not subject to import or export duties (Article 1(26)) of the delegated regulation (EU) 2015/2446)

(****) Central repository (CR)

(*****) Shared Trade Interface – STI

Entrée en vigueur de l’USMCA le 1er juillet : Principaux problèmes de mise en œuvre et de conformité

Le 24 avril 2020, le représentant américain au commerce (USTR) Robert Lighthizer a notifié au Congrès que l’accord États-Unis-Mexique-Canada (USMCA) entrera en vigueur le 1er juillet 2020.

 En conséquence, l’Accord actuel de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA/NAFTA ) cessera ses effets à cette date.

Nous résumons ci-après les conséquences de ce changement que d’une part les importateurs et exportateurs américains, canadiens et mexicains vont devoir apprendre à gérer sous peu  ainsi que d’autre part, les entreprises européennes qui jusqu’à présent utilisaient le cumul des avantages de l’accord UE-Mexique avec ceux de l’ancien accord  de libre-échange (ALE) ALENA/NAFTA :

 (1) les principales problématiques de mise en œuvre et de conformité ;

(2) les nouvelles orientations réglementaires américaines ; et (3) les autres changements importants ayant une incidence sur les enquêtes sociales, la protection de la propriété intellectuelle, le règlement des différends, le commerce numérique et la résiliation de l’USMCA.

1. Principales problématiques de mise en œuvre et de conformité

L’entrée en vigueur de l’USMCA entraînera plusieurs changements par rapport à la manière dont les marchandises sont actuellement importées dans le cadre de l’ALENA, notamment en matière de:

1. Règles d’origine pour la préférence tarifaire .

L’USMCA a apporté des ajustements importants aux règles d’origine (RO) de l’accord ALENA, en particulier pour certains textiles et vêtements, produits chimiques, produits pharmaceutiques, produits électroniques, produits énergétiques et produits automobiles. En conséquence, les produits qui bénéficiaient auparavant de préférences tarifaires peuvent ne plus en bénéficier et les produits qui ne bénéficiaient auparavant pas de ces préférences peuvent désormais en bénéficier. Par exemple, l’USMCA exigera que certains tissus élastiques, fils à coudre, tissus pour poches et tissus enduits des vêtements proviennent d’une partie de l’USMCA afin que le produit bénéficie d’un traitement préférentiel. En revanche, l’USMCA augmente de 7 à 10 %,  les seuils de minimis pour les produits non originaires ce qui signifie que davantage de produits pourront bénéficier d’un traitement préférentiel dans le cadre de cette exception que dans le cadre actuel de l’ALENA.

Le changement le plus significatif concerne les règles d’origine pour le domaine automobile qui deviennent  plus complexes et plus contraignantes.

 Plus précisément, l’USMCA comprend trois règles d’origine applicables aux véhicules automobiles, qui devront désormais être respectées pour pouvoir bénéficier d’un traitement préférentiel. La première consiste en une augmentation de la teneur en valeur régionale (CVR) de tous les véhicules. La deuxième est une règle de CVR partiellement spécifique. La troisième est une nouvelle règle sur la valeur du travail (LVC), en vertu de laquelle un certain pourcentage de la valeur du véhicule doit être réalisé par des travailleurs gagnant au moins 16 dollars US de l’heure. L’USMCA prévoit une période d’introduction progressive de ces changements. En outre, les constructeurs automobiles doivent certifier chaque année que 70 % de l’acier et de l’aluminium utilisés dans leurs véhicules doivent provenir du Canada, du Mexique ou des États-Unis. Il n’y a pas de période d’introduction progressive pour cette exigence de 70 %. Toutefois, à partir de la septième année d’application de l’ USMCA , l’acier devra être fondu et coulé, et non pas seulement fini, en Amérique du Nord pour être considéré comme un bien originaire.

Il est par ailleurs prévu qu’au cours de  la 10^ème année de l’USMCA, les parties devront définir des normes d’origine pour l’aluminium. Ces modifications des Règles d’Origine n’auront pas seulement un impact sur les véhicules finis, mais sur l’ensemble de la supply-chain automobile.

1-2 Frais de traitement des marchandises.

Comme dans le cadre de l’ALENA, les importateurs pourront toujours demander a posteriori un traitement tarifaire préférentiel après l’importation et ce dans le délai d’un an à compter de la date d’importation du produit. Toutefois, les frais de traitement des marchandises ne seront plus remboursés.

1-3 Certificats d’origine.

Dans le cadre de l’ALENA et de l’USMCA, les importateurs qui demandent un traitement tarifaire préférentiel pour des produits en provenance du Canada et du Mexique doivent détenir un certificat d’origine valide. Toutefois, la procédure d’obtention d’un certificat sous l’USMCA sera désormais plus simple d’un point de vue administratif.

Par exemple, actuellement, seuls les exportateurs ou les producteurs peuvent remplir les certificats d’origine. En outre, le seul format acceptable est le formulaire 4 34 des douanes américaines.

Dans le cadre de l’USMCA, l’importateur pourra désormais  également émettre un certificat d’origine. S’ il n’est pas prévu de format prescrit pour les certificats d’origine, en revanche, des informations spécifiques devront y figurer dans le cadre de l’USMCA. Les importateurs pourront néanmoins rencontrer des difficultés pour recueillir les informations nécessaires, surtout s’ils ne sont pas affiliés à /du même groupe que/ l’exportateur. Mais, tant que les règles d’origine NAFTA et USMCA sont les mêmes pour les matériaux/composants et pour le produit fini, l’importateur devrait pouvoir se fier aux certifications NAFTA existantes et ne pas attendre pour préparer ses nouvelles certifications USMCA : en effet,  il devra être en possession de ce certificat au moment de l’importation s’il fait une demande de préférence USMCA à partir du 1er juillet 2020.

         1-4   Règles de marquage du pays d’origine

En vertu de la législation douanière américaine (section 304 du Tariff Act de 1930), les entreprises qui importent aux États-Unis de tous les pays doivent apposer sur les produits d’origine non américaine une étiquette indiquant leur pays d’origine. Actuellement, les règles de détermination de l’origine pour le marquage/étiquetage des marchandises importées du Canada et du Mexique sont codifiées dans la partie 102 du règlement douanier (NAFTA Marking Rules). En vertu de la partie 102, l’origine est largement déterminée sur la base des changements de classement tarifaire, ou des changements de position tarifaire, pour les matières étrangères utilisées dans la fabrication ou l’assemblage de d’un article.

Les règles de marquage de l’ALENA peuvent parfois différer des règles d’origine de l’ALENA et un produit doit satisfaire les deux pour pouvoir bénéficier des préférences tarifaires de l’ALENA.

Or l’USMCA  éliminant les règles de marquage de l’ALENA , on peut donc prévoir que la règle générale douanière de transformation substantielle pourrait s’appliquer à la place, dans laquelle le pays d’origine sera alors  celui où le produit a été entièrement obtenu ou celui où les matières étrangères utilisées pour fabriquer ou assembler le produit ont été transformées en dernier lieu de manière substantielle en un article portant un nom, un caractère ou un usage nouveau et différent.

1-5 Restrictions en matière de « drawback » (ristournes).

L’ALENA  impose des restrictions en matière de drawback (c’est-à-dire les droits qui susceptibles d’être remboursés, réduits ou supprimés). Plus précisément, en vertu de la règle du “moins de” de l’ALENA, le drawback est le moindre des droits totaux payés ou des droits dus sur les marchandises lorsqu’elles sont importées dans un pays de l’ALENA et ensuite exportées vers un autre pays de l’ALENA. L’USMCA maintient cette restriction, mais étend l’exception relative au sucre prévue dans l’ALENA aux produits contenant du sucre tels que els boissons. 

Ainsi, bien que les dispositions de l’USMCA en matière de drawback/ristourne soient largement identiques à celles de la NAFTA, les entreprises pourront bénéficier de drawback moindres car l’USMCA augmente simultanément les seuils de valeur des expéditions entraînant l’application du de minimis .

1-6  Le “Derecho de Tramite Aduanero” mexicain.

L’ALENA interdit aux parties d’imposer des droits de douane spécifiques sur les produits originaires, y compris les droits de douane mexicains (Derecho de Tramite Aduanero). En conséquence, la réglementation douanière du Mexique exempte spécifiquement les importations et les exportations de l’ALENA du paiement de ces frais. Cette exemption continuera de s’appliquer dans le cadre de l’USMCA.

2- Orientations réglementaires.

 Les modifications de l’USMCA détaillées ci-dessus nécessitent des changements correspondants dans la réglementation américaine. L’USMCA Implementation Act, promulgué le 29 janvier 2020, autorise et fixe des délais précis pour la publication de ces réglementations.

Par exemple, au plus tard le 1er juillet, toutes les parties devront être convenues de “réglementations uniformes” définissant une interprétation commune des règles d’origine de l’USMCA et des dispositions relatives à la facilitation du commerce. Le US Customs & Border Protection (douane US : CBP)  a publié des instructions de mise en œuvre provisoires le 21 avril 2020 afin de fournir aux parties prenantes des orientations jusqu’à ce que les réglementations finales officielles puissent être alignées sur Une Réglementation Uniforme. Les instructions de mise en œuvre provisoires fournissent cependant peu d’orientations. Les importateurs devront donc agir avec une diligence raisonnable pour se conformer à l’USMCA. La plupart des autres réglementations nécessaires à la mise en œuvre des changements de l’USMCA ont un calendrier de mise en oeuvre plus long et doivent être arrêtées dans un délai d’un an après le 1er juillet 2020, “dans toute la mesure du possible”.  Le représentant américain au commerce a indiqué qu’en général, il n’est pas tenu d’accorder un pouvoir discrétionnaire d’exécution pendant une période de mise en conformité informée, laissant  les importateurs s’adapter aux nouvelles exigences de l’USMCA. Les parties prenantes devraient donc être prêtes à se conformer à la plupart des dispositions de l’USMCA dès le 1er juillet 2020.  D’ici là, toutes les réglementations de l’ALENA restent en place.

3-Autres changements essentiels sous l’USMCA.

3-1 Les Enquêtes sociales.

L’USMCA contient les dispositions les plus solides en matière de droit du travail et de l’environnement de tous les accords commerciaux jamais négociés, ce qui a contribué à son fort soutien bipartite. En ce qui concerne le travail, l’USMCA établit également un nouveau “mécanisme de réponse rapide dans le domaine du travail”. Ce mécanisme permet aux États-Unis ou au Mexique de demander qu’un groupe spécial indépendant procède à un examen accéléré d’un refus présumé de libre association et de négociation collective dans des installations spécifiques des deux pays. Les sanctions pour le refus de ces droits comprennent la suspension du traitement tarifaire préférentiel ou le refus complet d’entrée pour les biens fabriqués dans cette installation. Dans le cadre de ce processus, le groupe spécial peut demander à inspecter l’usine en question. Les précédents accords de libre-échange américains n’ont porté que sur les pratiques de travail à l’échelle du pays ou de l’industrie, et non sur les conflits de travail sur des lieux de travail spécifiques. Ce mécanisme, qui a été ajouté à la dernière minute à la demande des démocrates de la Chambre des représentants US, sera probablement mis en œuvre par les deux pays peu après l’entrée en vigueur de l’USMCA. Les secteurs ciblés peuvent comprendre, entre autres, l’exploitation minière, la sidérurgie et l’automobile.

3-2 Protection des droits de propriété intellectuelle

Le chapitre sur la propriété intellectuelle de l’USMCA constitue une extension importante des protections actuelle de la propriété intellectuelle prévues par l’ALENA et reflète largement les protections élargies des droits de propriété intellectuelle figurant dans d’autres accords commerciaux américains récents. Il est conçu pour renforcer l’application et la protection des droits de propriété intellectuelle, y compris les brevets, les marques de commerce, les droits d’auteur et les secrets commerciaux. Par exemple, les parties ne peuvent pas limiter la durée de protection des secrets commerciaux et doivent adopter des sanctions pénales pour le détournement de ces derniers. En outre, il existe des dispositions exigeant de nouveaux systèmes de notification et des procédures pour faire valoir les droits de brevet et contester la validité des brevets. D’autres dispositions étendent la protection des marques aux sons et aux odeurs. L’USMCA exigera la protection des droits d’auteur pendant au moins la durée de vie de l’auteur augmentée de 70 ans.

3-3 Règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États.

L’USMCA modifiera considérablement le mécanisme de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (ISDS) de l’ALENA. Premièrement, les dispositions de l’USMCA en matière de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États ne s’appliquent qu’aux États-Unis et au Mexique. Les inventeurs américains au Canada et les inventeurs canadiens aux États-Unis devront se tourner vers les tribunaux nationaux ou d’autres mécanismes de règlement des différends. En outre, l’USMCA limite généralement le type d’allégations qui peuvent être portées devant un tribunal ISDS. Les seules demandes autorisées sont celles qui allèguent (1) une violation du traitement national, (2) une violation du traitement de la nation la plus favorisée et (3) une expropriation directe. Les demandes d’expropriation indirecte et de violation de la norme minimale de traitement sont exclues de l’ISDS. Et contrairement à l’ALENA, avant de se tourner vers le mécanisme ISDS, les investisseurs doivent d’abord épuiser les recours locaux en s’adressant aux tribunaux nationaux de l’État hôte et en obtenant une décision judiciaire finale ou en attendant 30 mois, à moins que cela ne soit “manifestement futile ou inefficace”. Toutefois, ces restrictions de fond et de procédure concernant les demandes d’ISDS ne s’appliquent pas aux investisseurs ayant signé des contrats gouvernementaux dans certains secteurs, notamment le pétrole et le gaz, la production d’électricité, les télécommunications, les transports et les infrastructures. L’USMCA prévoit une période de retrait progressif des protections en matière d’investissement de l’ALENA, qui s’applique aux trois parties à l’ALENA. Pendant une période de trois ans suivant la fin de l’accord, les investisseurs peuvent continuer à utiliser le mécanisme ISDS de l’accord pour les “investissements hérités”, c’est-à-dire les investissements existants établis ou acquis entre le 1er janvier 1994 et le 1er juillet 2020.

3-4 Commerce numérique

L’USMCA innove également avec un chapitre dédié commerce numérique ; le premier du genre pour tout accord commercial américain.  Le chapitre sur le commerce numérique officialise effectivement la libre circulation des données et l’échange de services numériques en Amérique du Nord, et réduit les coûts de transfert des données entre les pays. Plus important encore, le Canada, le Mexique et les États-Unis sont convenus d’éliminer tous les droits de douane sur les produits numériques. Il existe également une disposition qui empêche les trois parties d’imposer des exigences de localisation des données, ce qui peut limiter les flux de données transfrontaliers à partir des centres de données locaux. Cela est particulièrement important pour les vendeurs de commerce électronique, par exemple, qui ont besoin de transférer des données sur les clients et le commerce au-delà des frontières pour suivre les commandes et les produits. Une autre proposition limite la responsabilité des plateformes pour le contenu publié sur leurs sites par des utilisateurs tiers, sauf en ce qui concerne le respect de la propriété intellectuelle. L’USMCA empêche également les gouvernements de forcer les entreprises à divulguer leur code source, par exemple les algorithmes d’intelligence artificielle.

3-5 Autres dispositions

 Parmi les autres dispositions figurent également des engagements en matière de transparence, de protection des consommateurs (y compris sur la vie privée) et de sécurité. Ce chapitre a servi de base à l’accord commercial conclu entre les États-Unis et le Japon l’été dernier et devrait servir de modèle pour les futurs accords commerciaux des USA.

Contrairement à l’accord NAFTA, qui pouvait rester en vigueur indéfiniment, l’USMCA prendra fin 16 ans après son entrée en vigueur, à moins que les parties ne conviennent toutes de le prolonger de 16 ans supplémentaires. Les parties prendront cette décision lors d’un examen conjoint mené six ans après l’entrée en vigueur de l’USMCA. Si les parties conviennent toutes de proroger l’USMCA, le prochain examen conjoint n’aura pas lieu avant six ans, après quoi les parties auront à nouveau la possibilité de proroger l’accord de 16 ans. Toutefois, si une partie décide qu’elle ne souhaite pas prolonger l’USMCA au cours d’un examen conjoint, les parties procéderont à des examens conjoints annuels pendant le reste de la durée de l’USMCA.

Paris, 26 mai 2020

Bertrand RAGER reste à votre disposition pour toute précision à ce sujet         .

                   ____________________