Comparative Analysis in the Conduct of X-ray Scanning Inspection of Shipments Among the Major Ports of Entry

By : RENATO D. PALGAN

(This is a reprint from the SCANNER Newsletter, 19th Issue, September 2011)

As one of the field officers of the X-ray Inspection Project who have a chance to supervise the conduct of X-ray scanning operation in some major ports of entry in the country, I have had an opportunity to make an assessment and to reminisce and analyze the positive and negative aspects of our operations that I have been entrusted to take the helm of leadership. In my recollection, I sometimes do wonder why one port has a different mode of operation compared with another port. Better still, why do some other ports have some similarities in operation although they have different location in their X-ray facilities. Eventhough the basic tenets and guidelines of our operations lie on the provisions of CMO 6-2007 and CMO 13-2007, there are still some variations in the implementation of said guidelines at the respective ports of entry because of some reasons or another. And to differentiate the idiosyncrasies of our operation, this brief study has been made to give the XIP officers and personnel and the transacting public a bird’s eye view on the system of implementation of X-ray scanning operation in the major ports of entry where I was and am presently assigned.

These are just some of the major differences that I have observed on the operations at the Port of Manila, MICP, and the Port of Cebu X-ray Field Offices:

a.) Volume of Shipments Subject for X-ray

At the Port of Manila, consumption shipments comprise about 90% of the total volume of shipments subject for X-ray, while consumption shipments comprise 60% of the total volume at the MICP and only 50% of the volume X-rayed at the Port of Cebu.

b.) Conduct of X-ray Inspection of Shipments Before or After the Processing of Import Entry

Ideally, a shipment must be X-rayed first before processing of import entry and its relevant documents with the Assessment Division so that X-ray images become a tool to the customs examiners on the assessment of correct duties and taxes of the shipment. However, there are differences among the ports of entry with regards to this aspect. At the Port of Manila, X-ray inspection is made before the final assessment of duties and taxes by the customs examiners and, hence, shipment’s X-ray image result is used as one of their basis in their findings, while at the MICP and the Port of Cebu, X-ray inspection is made after the final assessment of duties and taxes by the customs examiners. Because of this, the most frequently asked question by the customs examiners is this: What will happen to the finished import entry if there are violations found during X-ray inspection? Well, the normal and obvious response to this question is that if the shipment is subject for physical examination, they could be held liable if they released the shipment although there are misdeclared items not found by them during physical examination.

c.) Conduct of X-ray Inspection Before or After the Release of Shipments by the Port Operator

Just like the conduct of X-ray inspection before the processing of import entry at the Assessment Division which is ideally the prescribed mode being contemplated under the spirit of CMO 6-2007, it must also be made before the shipment is released from the port operator so that there will be no risk that the shipment will be released without being scanned. With this, another glaring difference can be observed among the major ports. X-ray inspection is made before the release of shipment by the Asian Terminal Incorporated at the Port of Manila and by the OPASCOR at the Port of Cebu, while at the MICP, X-ray inspection is made after the release of shipment by the ICTSI.

d.) Primary Import Documents Submitted for X-ray Inspection

 It is noteworthy to mention that only photocopies of import entries and its supporting documents are submitted to the X-ray Field Offices at the Port of Manila, MICP, and Port of Cebu. However, one distinct feature at the MICP is that it requires the submission of the original Import Entry’s Green Copy to the MICP Field Office for stamping of “Subject for X-ray” in compliance with the memorandum of the District Collector of Customs issued in 2007. And it must be emphasized however that photocopies of documents are not reliable source of data of shipments in the absence of original copies of documents because of their tendency to be easily falsified by unscrupulous brokers and importers. Thus, it would be ideal if the field offices are linked with the E2M System of the MISTG so that pertinent facts about the X-rayed shipments can be easily ascertained as to their veracity and truthfulness.

e. Releasing Documents as Proof that Shipments Have Been Cleared/Released by the XIP

Among the three X-ray field offices, the Port of Manila has the safest and sophisticated way of releasing shipments subject for X-ray because it requires the lifting of X-ray flag on the computer system for electronically tagged shipments for X-ray as well as the submission of photocopies of duly accomplished X-ray printout copy to the Pier and Inspection Division (PID) as another proof of release of shipments by the XIP. At the MICP, the PID requires the submission of photocopies of duly accomplished X-ray printout copy with the stamped “Cleared” on it, while at the Port of Cebu, it is the gate pass of the arrastre operator with stamped “Released” by the XIP that is being required by the PID.

Basing on the foregoing discussions, in order to have an ideal set-up of X-ray scanning operation, I believe that the following conditions should be implemented by the customs top management to have an efficient and effective conduct of X-ray scanning operations:

1. To strengthen up the X-ray Scanning procedures, there must be standardized X-ray scanning procedures in all field offices so that the best scanning practice will be applied to all ports. Although certain ports of entry have peculiarities as to the nature of shipments arriving as well as on the location of X-ray facilities, perhaps it is for the best interest of all port stakeholders that certain basic principles and rules should be applied to all especially as to when X-ray inspection shall be made.

2. The Online Release System (OLRS) of the BOC must include shipments subject for X-ray so that X-rayed shipment must be electronically released by the XIP in the system without using a separate computer system by the arrastre operator as in the case of POM. With this set-up, shipments subject for X-ray especially those with multiple containers can never be released without first undergoing X-ray inspection.

3. There must be a rational application of risk assessment of shipments subject for X-ray inspection by having a regular dialogue or an XIP representative with the RMO to obtain a proper criteria for selectivity system so that only high risk shipments are tagged for X-ray inspection.

4. There must be guidelines in the conduct of X-ray inspection for export shipments.

5. All field offices must be connected electronically with the E2M system to have access of import data of shipment subject for X-ray inspection. Since import documents submitted to the field offices by the brokers are merely photocopies, it is necessary to check the veracity of such documents through the E2M system data.

6. Considering that most shipments tainted with fraud are committed on consumption shipments, it is therefore logical that 20 % of the total volume of consumption shipments arriving daily at the port of entry be tagged for X-ray and only 10 % of the transshipment, informal, reefer shipments and other so-called mandatory shipments for X-ray be subjected to X-ray inspection so that risk assessment will also be applied to them for X-ray inspection.