Customs 10+2 Initiative
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.11.08
Importers face a new filing obligation arising before the entry documents are filed, and indeed before merchandise is even loaded into a container: a recent Customs proposal would mandate the submission of an Importer Security Filing ("ISF") 24 hours prior to container loading. The ISF would require ten data fields, including:
(1) Manufacturer (or supplier) name and address
(2) Seller (by owner) name and address
(3) Buyer (or owner) name and address
(4) Ship-to name and address
(5) Container stuffing location
(6) Consolidator (stuffer) name and address
(7) Importer of record number/foreign trade zone applicant identification number
(8) Consignee number(s)
(9) Country of origin
(10) Commodity Harmonized Tariff Schedule number
Customs is accepting comments on the proposal, known as the "10 + 2 Rule," until March 18, 2008. To date, the trade has been critical of the proposal because compliance with the ISF filing requirements will alter the way many companies do business. Creating new data gathering systems will be a significant burden, and many transactions (particularly CIF sales, which would make compliance with the rule difficult) now will require entirely new commercial arrangements.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
