CUSTOMS BUSINESS GROUP

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2016) /05/2016 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Customs Policy Customs Processes and Project Management Brussels, Taxud.a.3 (2016) Draft Summary Record CUSTOMS 2020 CUSTOMS BUSINESS GROUP 19 February 2016

2 AGENDA of the Customs Business Group Address: Albert Borchette Conference Centre, 36 Rue Froissart Room CCAB 4A 19 February Welcome and introduction 2. Approval of draft Agenda PART I UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS 3. BPM s on Customs Decisions 3. 1 Final update on L2+L3 Key points 3. 2 Update of Level 4 to align with adopted UCC DA-IA 3. 3 Planning: Request for changes (RfC) for Technical Specifications (TSS) Master Plan 4. Business questions raised during review of TSS and from Member States 5. UCC Transition from a legal and operational point of view PART II UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS 6. EU Trader Portal Follow up to CBG 30/04, ECCG 1/10 and CPG 1/12 PART III UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS JOINT WITH TCG 7. State of play: 7. 1 UCC Customs Decisions 7. 2 EU Trader Portal PART IV UCC IMPACT ON NATIONAL SYSTEMS 8. PG analysis of UCC impact on National Systems Final report 9. Conclusion and closure of the meeting

3 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION The Chair (Mrs S. De Coster) welcomed the Member State delegates (MS) to the 7 th Customs Business Group (CBG) meeting, dedicated to the UCC Customs Decisions project. The Chair announced that the Trade Contact Group (TCG) representatives would attend the third part of the meeting to be briefed on the progress made towards the Customs Decisions project and the implementation of the EU Trader Portal. The Chair announced the simultaneous interpretation available. 2. APPROVAL OF DRAFT AGENDA The Chair presented the draft agenda items. DK requested to receive the agenda in MS Word instead of PDF format. COM agreed. Due to scheduling constraints, ES proposed a change in the order of items foreseen on the agenda so that the EU Trader Portal envisaged as item 6 could be discussed during the first part of the meeting. COM agreed to discuss agenda item 6 after item 3.1 relating to the overview of BPM s on Customs Decisions. The agenda was approved without any further proposed changes. PART I UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS 3. BPM S ON CUSTOMS DECISIONS COM pointed out that Customs Decisions represents one of the earliest and biggest UCC projects, which requires a result-oriented approach and timely implementation. COM further informed that the UUM&DS project, addressing trader authentication and identification for the EU Trader Portal, is making good progress by recently undertaking successful end-to-end testing FINAL UPDATE ON L2+L3 KEY POINTS COM gave a presentation (available on CIRCABC) on the final update of Level 2 (L2) and Level 3 (L3) BPMs, tracing key milestones in the project timeline. COM observed that the UCC DA/IA final legal text published on 29/12/2015 marked the start of the final update of the L2/L3 BPM. COM is working towards carrying out the review process for L2/L3 BPMs which should be finalized in Q The external review is expected on 03/04/2016. In regards to the main changes affecting the acceptance phase referenced in slide #9 of the presentation, ES observed that the wording is open to ambiguous interpretation. ES further inquired whether the 30 days timeframe could be interpreted as a possible further extension of the deadline. COM replied that, from a system viewpoint, the drafting has changed, whereas the interpretation remains the same. LT was of the opinion that, unlike the standard timer applied previously, the new version is limited to a maximum of 30 days. ES commented that the legal text lacks clarity. In reference to Article 12 (2) of the UCC IA, PL observed that the interpretation is quite clear, thus implying that the 30 day timeframe is linked to the maximum period granted to the economic operator to provide the additional information needed. NL remarked that clarity should be reached regarding the start and end dates of the process as this affects economic operators and customs authorities and that we should avoid mixing up timers possibly running in parallel. NL agreed with ES that a clear interpretation to the legislation must be provided. Concurring with the views expressed by NL and PL, COM interpreted Article 12(2) of the UCC IA to mean that the maximum period granted to the economic operator falls within the 30 days. However, in the absence of a representative of the legal unit, COM suggested to submit a proposal to the Legal Unit to assist in the interpretation of Article 12(2) of the UCC IA. COM will present the outcome of this assessment to the MS in writing and will implement it accordingly in the L2/L3 BPMs UPDATE OF LEVEL 4 TO ALIGN WITH ADOPTED UCC DA-IA COM gave a presentation (available on CIRCABC) on the alignment of the L4 BPMs with the UCC DA/IA final legal text and the main changes related to this update, viewed from a BMP, data element and methodology viewpoint. COM noted that these changes will be finalized in Q

4 3. 3 PLANNING: REQUEST FOR CHANGES (RFC) FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TSS) COM gave a presentation (available on CIRCABC) on the Request for Changes (RfC) for Technical Specifications (TSS). COM highlighted that Q L4 BPMs version constitutes the baseline used for the technical work. COM mentioned that the IT Unit and the contractor will undertake the impact assessment on the technical side in order to develop an analysis of what can still be implemented in the 01/10/2017 release. In addition, COM noted that the final alignment to the UCC DA/IA is ongoing internally. IE inquired whether the RfCs resulting from the external review are out of scope for the 01/10/2017 release. COM replied that it is difficult to take up a definite position for the time being because this depends on further analysis and discussions with the various parties involved. DE asked for clarification about the planning of the RfC implementation for national systems. Since the RfCs are discussed prior to the operation of the new system, COM acknowledged that further discussion with the IT Unit and the business teams is required. COM will decide in cooperation with MS on the release management. MASTER PLAN COM presented overview slides (available on CIRCABC) outlining a master project plan for the Customs Decisions package. COM pointed out that the previous presentations indicated how all components would interact in an integrated plan. In addition, COM noted that any changes resulting from the adopted UCC DA/IA or proposed by the MS will be handled through the change management procedure along with any possible amendments to the legal text. In turn, these changes will be undergoing impact assessment to determine in which release they can be integrated. COM observed that the idea of integrating all components in a single master plan creates a better conceptualization of how all the pieces, such as the legal aspects, BPMs and IT deliverables, fit together. COM informed that a template of the MS project plans could be made available in one of the next ECCG meetings. 4. BUSINESS QUESTIONS RAISED DURING REVIEW OF TSS AND FROM MEMBER STATES COM gave a presentation (available on CIRCABC) on the business questions raised during the TSS review and other questions submitted in writing by MS. No final decision has yet been taken regarding several questions submitted by MS, including the reference number generated when the Customs Decisions system receives a UCC application. Therefore COM welcomes MS views on this. Given that the UCC Customs Decisions system is presented in English, COM noted that it is left to MS discretion to provide the translations to COM. The questions related to transitional arrangements will be included in a survey, with the purpose of determining whether the EU Central System or the hybrid approach will be used by MS on a national level. As regards the amendment of the legal provisions, COM informed that, until the system deployment in 01/10/2017, the work should be continued on the basis of the existing legal provisions. NL considered the business questions valid but inquired whether, from an operational view point, they would have a bearing on implementation. In addition, NL asked whether the questions, discussed in the presentation, will be included in the survey. COM agreed on the need to reconsider the structure of further work on this project. COM informed that an operational group is in fact established under the ECCG, but COM s priority for the time being is to design a survey questionnaire for the business and IT related questions, which will give MS an opportunity to discuss the issues indicated in the survey with their national experts and provide their views on the best approach. COM further noted that the ECCG experts will be kept informed regarding the survey. SE expressed dissatisfaction about the language regime, remarking that the Customs Decisions system should be available in all official languages. COM will give the appropriate technical support by including all official languages in the central system, provided that it obtains the translations from each MS. FR asked for clarification about the guidelines to be followed in preparing the survey. COM explained that the MS answers can be provided in the mailbox indicated in the survey, which will be available by 26/02/2016. COM expects the survey to be submitted in approximately two to three weeks, noting that if MS would like to provide additional information, it could be included together with the survey. On the basis of the survey outcome, COM will prepare a paper which will be presented to MS as a proposal. 4

5 5. UCC TRANSITION FROM A LEGAL AND OPERATIONAL POINT OF VIEW COM provided an overview (slides in detail are available on CIRCABC) of the legal framework governing the UCC transition, which will have an impact on the UCC Customs Decisions (UCC CD) project. The UCC DA/IA and UCC TDA refer to the transitional arrangements. The TDA prescribes the regulations which will amend the DA. COM introduced the main legal provisions related to the transitional arrangements in terms of the authorizations. As regards the system changes from an operational point of view, COM clarified that MS have flexibility in choosing between using the existing mechanisms/requirements and the new data requirements until the system becomes operational on 01/10/2017. As of 01/10/2017, two possibilities will be available: 1) new applications for authorizations will be used in line with the systems specifications, new data requirements and processes; 2) the existing authorizations, which will be reassessed until 01/05/2019, should be integrated in the system only in a manually and should be in full compliance with the new data requirements. The final decision concerning this matter has not yet been taken. The current MS national system will run in parallel with the new UCC CD system until 01/10/2017. UK expressed concern regarding the 17 month window from 01/05/2016 to 01/10/2017. UK mentioned that considering the amount of information supplied by trade during this timeframe, problems could arise when traders would decide to amend the data, which is not included in CDMS. In view of this, UK inquired as to whether COM could propose an automated mechanism to avoid processing applications that should be rekeyed into a central solution. COM replied that during the TDA discussions in 2015, MS requested to keep using the existing mechanisms and data requirements until the new system would become operational, as clearly reflected in the legal text. COM pointed out that the problem lies with data migration, noting that the transitional arrangements are in place and MS have the flexibility to choose between the existing or new data requirements. DE asked whether the new authorizations received via the national database as of 01/05/2016 should be uploaded in the UCC CD system as of 01/10/2017 or whether it should be keyed manually. COM explained that a uniform data representation is needed and for the moment this procedure is foreseen to be to be done manually. UK stressed the difficulty of uploading the missing data in the central solution, stressing that IT needs to provide back-up for data gaps. In addition, UK mentioned that given the tight timeframe, decisions need to be made as to what data needs to be captured. COM agreed commenting that this depends on MS practices and the decisions they follow. COM stated that it needs further information from MS put forward a proposal regarding this matter. In response to UK s question, NL expressed concern about adjusting the authorization upload to the new data requirements. NL proposed to put together documentation for further analysis. COM agreed, noting that CD is shifting from a purely national to a European perspective, which calls for specific attention from the Legal Unit. In light of this, COM proposed to put forward questions to MS to obtain a better understanding as to what needs to be done in order to present the MS viewpoints to the Legal Unit. UK expressed the urgency in addressing this matter. DE supported the idea to set up the document regarding the UCC CD transition. In addition, DE said if the authorizations must be uploaded by 01/10/2017, the system should be available earlier and COM should advise on the migration deadline. COM agreed with UK and DE. PART II UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS 6. EU TRADER PORTAL FOLLOW UP TO CBG 30/04, ECCG 1/10 AND CPG 1/12 COM gave a presentation on the EU harmonised Trader Portal for Customs Decisions (available on CIRCABC). The objective of the EU Trader Portal (TP) is the harmonization of EU Custom s valid authorizations to the effect that it can act as a single administration portal. COM informed that a hybrid approach was agreed upon during the discussions with the MS. This hybrid approach grants MS the option to use the central system or their national system which could interoperate with the central system. The system allows MS and traders to use either the EU TP or the national TP for national decisions. The majority of MS were in favour of the proposal except for ES and FR.Thus two bilateral meetings took place on 26/01/2016 with ES and on 04/02/2016 with FR in order to discuss the issue. COM received a proposal from ES which was supported by FR with the objective of giving the possibility to traders to access the EU TP, but also the national TP if needed. COM highlighted that it is important to continue the same process until the end without shifting between the portals. COM added that the link between the CD central system and the national system should be established. COM recalled that ES deemed it unfair for the operators to only use the EU TP, suggesting that it would be more useful to 5

6 choose between the EU TP and national TP. COM concluded that it accepted the ES and FR proposal and continued the presentation with the impact of IT architecture on CD project. COM emphasised that it is the MS responsibility whether they want to give the option to the traders to choose between the EU TP and the national TP. COM welcomes all MS who decide to change their approach on which system they want to use and asked to be informed regarding this so that the MS choice of preference could be communicated to the traders. DE asked if national authorisation will be submitted by the EU, rather than the national portal. DE further inquired whether the EU portal will automatically reject the national portals application or whether this should be done manually. COM replied that it is important to first obtain the MS decision in order for the traders to be aware of which process they can follow. From an IT standpoint, there is nothing foreseen to block and reject that type of application, but it could be included and noted as a change request for the IT unit. NL expressed gratitude to have an alternative to accessing the portal. NL thanked COM for presenting this opportunity and will inform COM if they agree with this solution or whether they would propose changes. COM thanked NL and noted that it was important for the MS to provide flexibility and to allow the traders to launch an application via the national portal. The solution proposed is in line with COM and national policy. COM also thanked ES and FR for their constructive proposal. FI inquired how this solution would affect the application process in case the trader applies via the national portal, if CDMS will be informed about that process and how everything is linked. COM said there is a link between the EU and national CDMS system. The link with the EU system will be implemented as it was initially foreseen. FI inquired about the cases when the application process is in the national system, and if the trader access Siri portal then he will not be able to view the application. COM responded that traders should use the same TP throughout the application process. The same approach should be followed for other related activities otherwise the trace data will be incomplete. By using one TP, traders can avoid traces of communication with the customs in two different systems. FI asked if the trader can access the final decisions on both systems or only from the portal in which his application was generated. COM said that MS are always free to publish national decisions to CRS, which means that if logged in the EU portal, the trader could view the authorisations as they have been recorded in the CRS component. LT requested clarification as to whether it is up to MS to offer or up to trader to choose. COM confirmed that it is first up to MS to offer and if MS will offer both options, then traders can choose. SE asked whether the vision of the TP as it was presented in last year s meeting is still intact, because the initial vision was to launch the TP for pure national authorisations. COM said there is no obligation, either the EU or national portals can be used, but always in line with system specifications. COM said that if the question is related to the Multi MS UCC decisions, it would need to check with the IT working group. The IT representative said that the vision was discussed but different decision types and processes of handling these decisions derived from these discussions which create difficulty in providing support. UK said that there is a risk of mixing up the definition of what is national and what is UCC. UK mentioned that a previous version of slide #4 of the presentation showed a connection between the national portal and the harmonised UCC portal whereas, in the new version, this is no longer indicated. UK asked if this connection is still in the scope. COM responded that in order to cover this request, a hyperlink has been placed on the national website which will create a link to the EU portal. PL referred to the authentication process and noted that the hyperlink could be integrated in the central services of the national portal if it supported by the single sign on (SSO), which means access to services and representations. UUM&DS support is restricted for the SSO in terms of representation. The constant need to re-authenticate when the trader tries to change representations is time consuming and complicates the process. COM agreed regarding this issue, noting that it should be addressed by UUM&DS colleagues. PL suggested not to force the user for re-authentication but to add some attributes in order to simplify the process. ES thanked COM for accepting their proposal. Regarding the first bullet point on slide #11 regarding replication and web services, ES was unsure whether this is based on its proposal. ES pointed out that as set out on page #11 of the Vision Document, replication and web services are both possible. The elimination of the replication option would have a great impact on ES. ES has to ensure that the dispatch system for declarations should be fluid even after shifting to the new national legislation. COM said there are no changes in terms of data replication, but only in terms of CRMS and CDMS. COM provided further clarity on CRS and CDMS. CRS is a high availability system that contains relevant information regarding daily 6

7 processes. The CRS information can be accessed via the web and consultation services but it can also be replicated. CRS serves the customs declaration system, therefore the replication is possible. CDMS is of no relevance to daily processing but it is a management system which does not offer replication, but data access. In relation to national decisions, COM said that with the single MS UCC decisions it was foreseen that MS would have the possibility to use the system. COM agreed that there should not be an impact in terms of performance of the system. In terms of cooperating national decisions, the response level should be kept at what has been foreseen so that it does not affect the performance of the system, validations or authorizations. FR thanked ES for the proposal and will send remarks to COM in the near future. PART III UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS JOINT WITH TCG The Chair (Mrs S. De Coster) welcomed the Trade Contact Group (TCG) representatives to the 7 th meeting of the Customs Business Group (CBG). 7. STATE OF PLAY: 7. 1 UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS COM gave a presentation (available on CIRCABC) on the UCC CD project plan and introduced the upcoming activities. COM informed that UCC Work Programme (UCC WP) and the Multi Annual Strategic Plan (MASP) stipulates the deployment of the UCC CD system on 01/10/2017. The Master Plan will determine what will be implemented in the project s lifecycle in terms of 01/10/2017 and future system releases. As regards RfCs, discussions regarding specific RfCs introduced in certain releases of the project will be arranged EU TRADER PORTAL COM gave a presentation (available on CIRCABC) on the EU harmonized Trader Portal. IATA asked when the MS survey will be available. COM informed that the survey it should be sent by 26/02/2016. IPSCA expressed concern about the numbering of authorization documents considering that the trader will have a choice to access the EU or the national TP. COM explained that currently the number assignment is unique, whereas the number format is under consideration. COM further clarified that this is not a portal decision, but it is related to the decision authorization process. The issues on how the to arrange the transition will be collected from MS in order to find proper solutions. From a technical viewpoint, COM informed that Customer Reference System s (CRS) development is of vital importance, because this system will serve not only for the UCC CD, but also for the REX system. PART IV UCC IMPACT ON NATIONAL SYSTEMS 8. PG ANALYSIS OF UCC IMPACT ON NATIONAL SYSTEMS FINAL REPORT COM gave an overview of the Final Report of the Customs 2020 PG related to the UCC impact on MS systems. The PG analysed the associated legal articles, the data requirements, the links and dependences between the systems and the impact on the MASP projects. COM informed that the report was also presented to the ECCG and the CPG meetings. The CPG members expressed appreciation about the PG work, indicating that the analysis made has revealed the potential impacts. Following the outcome of the report the MS have to take important decisions, whether to upgrade the national declaration systems or to set up a new system. The report was presented to the TCG in a dedicated session of the ECCG meeting to address further clarifications and express additional views. COM noted that the findings of the PG contributed in updating the UCC WP, in particular the migration windows and system dependences of the systems, as well as in triggering a need for flexibility on the pure national systems development. COM thanked the MS and Mr. Enda Ryan for their input to the PG and welcomed the members of the PG to provide further information. UK noted that the scope of the PG was to examine the impact of change required by the UCC and the MASP upon the national systems. The PG had to review how to improve the monitoring process and govern future change. The benefit of this analysis was the realisation that the import process would be impacted 7

8 three times in 2017, which would create significant problems for the MS and traders in delivering ongoing changes. The PG examined the changes more strategically to find a better way of approaching the MASP delivery as a whole. Additionally, the PG recognised the need to shift the two yearly releases from January to March and from July to October in order to avoid holiday periods and to provide the common specifications to the traders 24 months before the system becomes operational. UK stated that given the analysis made, the PG provided a set of recommendations which could be used for the future planning and future engagement with the trade community. NL stressed that the PG work gave an opportunity to identify the complexity of the UCC changes and their impact on the national systems. NL added that the traders are playing an important role in the attempt to tackle the system complexity and to provide some solutions. NL asked the traders to provide their input on the outcome and the recommendations of the PG. COM said that an action plan would be to follow-up on the PG recommendations in the ECCG meetings. One of the objectives of the PG deliverable was to develop a better planning and to enhance the implementation strategy which will be used in the MASP and the UCC WP. Other elements that resulted from the PG work are governance and budget and priorities which require further analysis. WSC welcomed the work done by the PG and noted that it shared the view about the requirement to have 24 month leading time from the moment that stable Functional Technical System Specifications (FTSS) are available to the point when they need to be complied by traders. A number of Trader Organisations expressed their concern to COM that the afore-mentioned principle was not incorporated in the UCC WP. It is essential to have sufficient time for traders to implement the new IT systems. In addition, WSC referred to Section on page 29 of the Final Report addressing the issue of AN/PN/TSD changes not being implemented earlier than the operational date of ICS 2.0. WSC stressed that according to the PG proposal, the process is linked to ICS2.0, which means that trade would have to be responsive to 28 MS under a tight schedule. COM explained that the reason for not indicating a fixed date for national systems is: 1) the different national situations and their approach and 2) the relation of how many traders have to migrate from a system point of view. COM supported the view that the traders need to have sufficient time to amend and to develop their systems. Furthermore, COM informed that according to the recommendations provided, flexibility is also needed for the import system, since it is purely a national domain, therefore changes will be scheduled to national import entry system by each MS. WSC highlighted that the following two statements resulting from the report should be reflected in the UCC WP: 1) on page 31, COM took on-board and introduced the principal that there should be a period of 24months between agreement of technical specifications and the proposed LID to allow Member States and trade sufficient time to design, build and test their solutions; 2) on the page 30, The Project Group is of the opinion that the changes in the entry process (AN/PN/TSD) of the Member States should not normally be implemented earlier that the operational date of ICS 2.0. COM explained that the flexibility on AN/PN/TSD was required by MS during the discussions of the UCC WP. The MS requested to not appoint the obligation of the 24 months to provide the specifications in advance of the deployment of the system. Reflecting on the concern regarding ICS2.0 system and the AN/PN/TSD, UK explained that some projects have the same implementation date in the current MASP. Therefore, the links and dependencies influence the projects and the shift of one project would have an impact on the next. The principle regarding 24 months still has a high value because it indicates the MS recognition of the trade needs. IATA inquired about classified requirements before system deployment. COM clarified the specifications requirement for the EU systems will be published 24 months in advance. As regards the national systems, each MS has to fix the dates individually. WSC wondered whether the national specifications could be brought to TCG s attention at the EU level. UK pointed out that MS are also dependent on the traders expectations. Further, COM added that MS will provide the milestones of their national plans, which will be published on the Europa website. DE informed that it is not possible to provide national TSS directly to the traders. Although DE mentioned that it will attempt to deliver the TSS to trade 24 months in advance, they would require another 30 months to rewrite the TSS in their system before passing on the information. COM informed that MS need to share an implementation guideline with the traders. WSC noted that MS have very good mechanisms in communicating with trade, adding that some organisations in the TCG have the capacity to amplify the messages and requirements developed by MS and transmit this information to trade in a timely manner. WSC highlighted that a contact group within its 8

9 company consisting of a specialised set of people could assist with the communication process. DE remarked that the EU lacks a harmonised system for technical specifications. The specifications need to be revised and adapted to specific national needs. WSC supported DE s approach and emphasised the need for close collaboration between trade and MS on system development. NL noted that it has already established the necessary communication channels and therefore it does not intend to change its system. IPSCA highlighted that the information regarding the specifications with the implementation information should be published on the Europa website. COM informed that internal discussions regarding the national plans have started and will be continued in the upcoming ECCG and TCG meetings. The communication with the traders will be arranged in order to collect and share views on what type of information should be published. 9. CONCLUSION AND CLOSURE OF THE MEETING The Chair concluded the 7 th meeting CBG meeting joint with TCG by thanking the delegates for their valuable contributions and the interpreters for their service. Electronically signed on 25/05/ :25 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563 9