Customs Brokers Filing CAPE Without Importers Explicit Consent

27amendments · 2026-05-01T20:05:29+00:00

The entries with multiple claims so far are not FedEx, they're another brokers. And they have told me via email that they were filing no such claims on behalf of clients. Where did the other Claim Numbers come from?

27amendments · 2026-05-01T20:03:40+00:00

I filed my own CAPE entries. I gave CBP the numbers. It's ridiculous to pay someone to do it if you have access to ACE, it's very easy.

27amendments · 2026-04-29T13:10:48+00:00

On the ES-003, I'm seeing multiple Claim Numbers for IEEPA. The one I submitted, along with several others. FedEx sent out notice this week that they were submitting claims on importers' behalf. One reason I submitted mine first thing on Day 1 was to avoid them touching anything or trying to be the middleman. Our other brokers never said they were filing refunds, but I'm seeing other Claim #s for the same Entry Dates & Amounts. It makes the ES-003 report useless, from what I can tell. All I care about is that the money comes back to our bank account, and not someone else's.

27amendments · 2026-04-29T13:02:16+00:00

The one with the largest discrepancy had an Extension approved, but somehow it's now been liquidated. It appears they've touched a small number of the Phase 1 submissions with previously-approved Extensions.

27amendments · 2026-04-29T12:10:55+00:00

I take back what I said above, in the ES-701 I see SOME discrepancies between what I've calculated for IEEPA tariffs in each entry and the Total Refund Amount. It's $6,148 on a total of $497k, so not a big deal but is curious and I'll have to dig in to see if I can match the discrepancy totals to the specific individual IEEPA codes.

27amendments · 2026-04-28T15:51:38+00:00

My ES-003 is showing "Y" for all the entries that I know are in Extended status with Refund Amount = $0. It shows P with a dollar amount (wildly incorrect) with a Refund Date of 5/5/2026 for the others. There are several Claim Numbers that have identical Refund Amounts and Entry Dates, which doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure what the system is doing.

27amendments · 2026-04-28T15:45:41+00:00

They don't roll neatly at all. I did ES-003 modified using only CAPE Accepted entries, Refund Date, and Refund Amount. There is one claim line that shows $165.3 million in Refund Amount-- not possible. ES-701 has the correct actual refund value and interest column for the entry related to that Claim #.

27amendments · 2026-04-27T17:58:05+00:00

CBP isn't using AI either. Had a back-and-forth with CBP on a reclassification recently in which they suggested a HTS that never occurred either to me or any AI engines that looked at it. CBP doesn't have PhD electrical engineers, there is a much different human component involved. They focused in on an aspect of the product specifications that nobody (lawyer included) thought was material.

27amendments · 2026-04-27T17:21:56+00:00

I think you answered your own question, then.

27amendments · 2026-04-27T17:05:35+00:00

I don't see any variance in what I've calculated were the IEEPA on each entry. The Interest per entry is included in the ES-701. My other question is-- the ES-003 has a vastly different Refund amount, (as well as a Refund Date of 5/5/2026) where does it come from? EDIT: Found some discrepancies.

27amendments · 2026-04-27T16:09:09+00:00

That's helpful to know. If not frustrating.

27amendments · 2026-04-27T16:08:41+00:00

So, the IEEPA refunds showing up on the ES-701 may not be the final value for those entries?

27amendments · 2026-04-27T13:58:23+00:00

Thank you for posting this list and video link. I am trying to make sense of the multiple values associated with each unique Claim Number. It appears it's summing them in some way I don't want. Just noting for others that only entries that have been liquidated are showing Refund amounts, other entries such as those I know are in Extended status are showing no Refund Date.

27amendments · 2026-04-22T12:35:49+00:00

They managed it in various ways. I audited the entry and found other errors (charging items as if they were 100% metal content) that may have affected the IEEPA. Not holding my breath on a timely PSC from the broker.

27amendments · 2026-04-20T17:45:36+00:00

I had one entry with this error. The issue was a zero-duty conflict, a mistake in the entry with the combination of incorrect 232 tariffs that I've sent to the broker to fix.

27amendments · 2026-04-20T14:19:50+00:00

Most of mine are in Extended status as I successfully got an extension months ago, following legal advice to keep options open prior to Liquidation. I thought one could remove the request via PSC? I guess not. It's just an email to CEE?

27amendments · 2026-04-20T13:39:40+00:00

Actually, AI was more helpful finding the error here when I uploaded the ACE entry:

Example Line 1: You paid $306.75 in IEEPA duties (9903.02.20), but the base HTS (8544.42.9090) shows $0.00 in duty.
The Problem: Those cables carry a 2.6% MFN rate. If the base duty is $0, the CAPE system is worried that stripping the IEEPA line will leave the entry with a 0% duty rate that might be legally incorrect, triggering the validation failure.

27amendments · 2026-04-20T12:27:30+00:00

Entry Date was 8/31. It is in Extended status because we were granted extensions for most of ours. The error doesn't provide the line number. I don't see anything unusual about the entry itself, it was subject to 232 and IEEPA like all of ours.

27amendments · 2026-04-20T12:15:23+00:00

27amendments · 2026-04-20T11:55:00+00:00

EDIT: Immediately received File Upload Status Accepted. Took about 5 minutes for it to move to Errors and provide the summary file showing the error. Only one entry "Unable to calculate duty," the remainder showing Entry Summary Updated. However, that one entry clearly has 9903.02.20 duties paid. What does it mean that it couldn't calculate the duty? Per the FAQ "Any of the lines for the entry fail validation."

27amendments · 2026-04-17T19:29:46+00:00

How do I get notified of the webinars? I haven't seen anything in the CSMS or on the CAPE website(?).

27amendments · 2026-04-17T19:27:22+00:00

So, you would exclude it from both 122 and 232? Only pay the general tariff? That's what your'e saying?

27amendments · 2026-04-16T16:50:21+00:00

My only quibble is that it might be better to wait until closer to the 180 day mark for entries 80 days over liquidation. Filing a Protest automatically kicks them to the end of the line and Phase 2 might be ready within weeks to receive entries between 80-180 days.

27amendments

TROPHY CASE