Open ACE ESAR A2.2 Programming Issues (3 Issues Resolved, 5 Issues Added)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has posted an updated version of its spreadsheet of ACE ESAR A2.2 (Initial Entry Types) programming issues.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
(ESAR A2.2 allows for the filing and processing of formal (type 01) and informal (type 11) entry summaries for those who volunteer to submit such entry summaries in ACE. It also allows importers with ACE accounts (and brokers if granted cross account access) to respond to certain CBP forms via the ACE portal.)
3 Items Moved from Open to Closed
The following three items were moved from the “Open” list to the “Closed” closed, as these issues were resolved:
| 01/04/10 | ACE entry summary invoice line references error on reject. An ACE entry summary was correctly rejected for not having an ending invoice line range number in the 42-record (only the beginning invoice line number was reported; the ending line number was reported as spaces and was correctly rejected for being non-numeric). However, the invoice beginning line number references provided on the input 42-record were not provided on the reject E0-record, signpost “INVLIN”. The reference data text of the “INVLIN” should contain the beginning line number in positions 26-40 of the E0-record. |
| 10/19/10 | ACE Importer/Bond Query Outbound Response Truncated. An inbound Importer/Bond Query (KI) submitted on 10/15/10 included a query for about 9,200 IOR numbers. The outbound message should have generated a KR response of about 25,000 records (just an estimate and varies depending upon query results). The outbound message stored in ACE only includes the first 6400 outbound records and is incomplete based on the inbound query. |
| 11/03/10 | ACE Entry Summary Surety Code Validation Issue. ACE entry summaries submitted by a trade participant using a valid importer with a valid bond were rejected from ACE as Reported Surety/Bond Surety Mismatch. In this scenario a cargo release transaction was filed in ACS with an 11/1/10 release date, the bond active on 11/1/10 was terminated on 11/1/10 and ACE did not handle the surety validation correctly for a previously active bond. |
CBP Lists 53 Issues as Open, 5 Are New
The following is a list of the 53 “Open” issues on CBP’s spreadsheet, along with the date opened, and any scheduled delivery dates (see spreadsheet for closed (completed), canceled, and deferred issues). Note that five items have been added to the list in January 2011 (last five listed):
| Date Opened | Issue Description |
| 4/16/09 | The trade cannot request new SUB-ACCOUNTS via the Account Selector List on the ACE Portal. This means they cannot add additional IR numbers, SCACs or process mergers. |
| 04/20/09 | An ACE SYSTEM FAILURE message is generated in CERT when an AE with a payment type code of 6, 7, or 8 is submitted. This payment type requires the importer/broker to be authorized for monthly statement. This is not an issue in ACE production. |
| 06/05/09 | Multiple batch transmissions only processing first batch. When a transmission contains multiple batches (multiple A-Z record sets), ACE only processes the first batch (A-Z record set) and not the subsequent batches. This impacts all ACE filers. Section 1.2.1 General Batch Recognition Rule of System Business Rules provides the requirements for this business rule. |
| 06/23/09 | "Control record format issues with HD transaction. A trade participant currently testing entry summary filing in ACE CERT reported that the control records (A, B, Y, and Z) were formatted incorrectly for the HD transaction causing problems in their system. After some research, it appears that the control records constructed for the event are not processing correctly. The event record incorrectly shows date/time and repeats the port and filer code -- but does not include the current date in positions 15-20. The event record also incorrectly shows the date/time. These same data fields (within incorrect records) are then carried thru to the HC and the HD transactions. The B-record in the HD should not include the date/time." |
| 07/23/09 | ACE entry summaries missing from daily statement. An ACE entry summary filer submitted several entry summaries on Sunday July 12th. The entry summaries (AE transactions) submitted prior to 18:55 were processed by ACE and returned a valid AX response -- summary has been added. The filer submitted these (and ones after 18:55) with a statement print date of 072209. The entry summaries submitted prior to 18:55 did not appear on yesterday’s (072209) statement, the ones submitted after 18:55 did appear. In addition, the ACE CATAIR AE and AX transactions submitted prior to 18:55 on Sunday, July 12th do not appear in EMM. Only those submitted after 18:55 appear in EMM. |
| 08/07/09 | Paperless indicator discrepancy between broker and CBP statements. There is an inconsistency in the Paperless Indicator field between what the broker receives on their Final Statement vs. what CBP receives on their Final Statement on ACE entries involving liquidation holds. The broker is receiving a 'P' paperless indicator via ABI on the specific ACE entry summary (which means not to submit the paper docs to the port) while the CBP port is receiving the equivalent to docs required status. |
| 08/19/09 | Entry Summary Accepted in ACE Not Found in ACS. A filer submitted an ACE entry summary on 8/1/09 at 06:46. The event was not successful -- either not created, created and not sent, or not received and processed by ACS. The entry summary did not appear on a statement for the filer to pay causing potentially liquidated damages. The response message (AX) from ACE to the filer appeared correctly and as expected. The entry summary was not found in ACS. All other entry summaries processed that day were correctly processed in ACE and ACS. However, the entry summary has subsequently been re-submitted and has now processed correctly in ACE and ACS. |
| 11/02/09 | Internal Event in Error as Created from an ACE Entry Summary. An ACE entry summary created on 11/2/09 was processed and saved in ACE. When accepted in ACE, data from the ACE entry summary is replicated to ACS via the internal event transaction. In this case, the event was created without the data submitted by the filer in the OI-record to be used for cargo release processing. However, the correct OI-record data was inserted for the data in the event to be used by ACS to create the entry summary in ACS. The result was an HD cargo release transaction sent to the trade participant rejecting the release of the cargo. |
| 11/11/09 | Multiple Entry Summary Queries in a Batch Not Processed in ACE. Entry summary queries when submitted in multiple blocks within a batch are not being processed in ACE. Examples show 2 blocks (B-Y record sets) within a batch (A-Z record set). These transmissions are currently not processing in ACE but should be rejected as specified in the business rule "ABI Part IV. ACE ABI Trade Filing Transaction Syntax Evaluation" as "MULTIPLE QUERIES IN BATCH NOT ALLOWED". |
| 11/12/09 | "ACE Entry Summary Control Status Changed in Error. ACE entry summaries which are in CBP control status and have been rejected by CBP are incorrectly having the control status changed to Trade control when the entry summary is removed from statement in ACS. The following scenario describes this situation: 1. A CBP user rejected an ACE entry summary through a Validation Activity -- (Control Status = CBP; ES Status = Rejected) 2. The filer sent in an HP transaction in ACS to remove the entry summary from a statement (Control Status = Trade; ES Status = Rejected) 3. The filer sent in a replacement AE in ACE but it was rejected by the system because of missing payment information. 4. Since the entry summary was back in Trade control based on step 2 above, ACE deleted the entry summary when it rejected the new AE. 5. The filer resubmitted the AE in ACE (with payment information) and it was accepted by the system (Control Status = Trade; ES Status = Accepted) |
| 11/24/09 | ACE entry summary reject text incorrect in article party record. An ACE entry summary was correctly rejected for a missing article party -- in this case the consignee was missing from the input 47-record. However, the reference data text returned in the output E0-record for the “ARPART” sign post is the word “null”. The reference data text in this situation should be blank. |
| 12/21/09 | ACE Entry Summary AX Response Issue for ACE System Failure Messages. A large batch of ACE entry summaries submitted on Thursday, 12/17/09 at 22:34:03 processed in ACE and generated two AX response messages. A valid successful response for each entry summary in the batch was returned to the filer on Friday, 12/18/09 at 07:03:20 after the server issue was resolved. A second AX response message was sent to the filer for this same batch on Saturday, 12/19/09 at 19:31:24. However, all individual entry summary responses in this batch indicated ACE System Failure. Both batch response messages were processed by the filer causing issues in their system for each of the entry summaries since the last AX response indicated ACE system failure and transaction data rejected for each entry summary. |
| 12/29/09 | ACE Entry Summary Error in E0-Record on Reject Output. The E0-record generated by ACE should include the 'Occurrence Position' in record positions 11-16. For the PSTLIN conditions, this should be a numeric value indicating the relative sequence of the entry summary in the transaction block. In the example used for this situation, the occurrence position for the PSTLIN reference data types show all zeros as “00000”. In this example the occurrence position for the first E0-record for PSTLIN should be “00001” and “00002” for the 2 entry summaries in the batch, respectively. |
| 01/15/10 | Large bond query messages (KI) are failing to process in ACE PROD. The inbound KI message flow is failing to put the Bond Query on the inbound queue, due to the size of the message exceeding the maximum length set on the queue. Adjustments will be made to increase the processing through-put. |
| 01/20/10 | ACE Entry Summary Condition Code Error. When an ACE entry summary is rejected for the business validation “LOOP EXCEEDED -- ARTICLE PARTIES” the condition code returned in the E1-record, positions 5-7, should be A23. Condition code A21 is currently returned in error. |
| 02/11/10 | ACE entry summaries with a blank liquidation date. There are several entry summaries in ACE which currently have a liquidation status of “not liquidated” and a blank liquidation date in error. These entry summaries are in CBP control and have a collection status of either “Paid” or “Duty Free” and either do not have a validation activity or have closed validation activities. The liquidation status and liquidation date should replicate from ACS as they are set in ACS during ACS entry summary processing. These entry summaries should have a liquidation date (not blank) and should indicate a liquidation status of “Liquidated”. |
| 02/14/10 | ACE Entry Summary Filer's Transactions Rejected in Error. A new self-filing importer submitted entry summary transactions to ACE which were rejected from ACE for “Broker Not Authorized in Port”. Investigation found that the EDI profile was correctly established in ACE to permit the filer to successfully submit entry summaries to ACE. Further investigation uncovered that the Customization Indicator check is being performed on self-filing importer transactions in error. Therefore, the Customization Indicator check needs to be eliminated for self-filing importers. |
| 02/15/10 | AD/CVD case information query did not provide a response. An AD/CVD case information query attempting to query all cases updated since 2/14/10 did not provide an output response to the filer. It appears that the output would include all case records in the case management file and be greater than the file size limitation. The transaction did not reject or provide a response. |
| 02/22/10 | AD/CVD entry summary report results inconsistent. AD/CVD entry summaries (entry type 03) have been successful transmitted to, processed by, and persisted in ACE. Report ESM 7068 includes all of the entry type 03 entry summaries added to date. ESM 8027 report only includes a subset of the entry type 03 entry summaries. Report ESM 7008, includes none of the entry type 03 summaries. (The date range and other criteria being used is identical.) |
| 03/02/10 | ACE Outbound Message Not Received by Filer. An outbound AC message created on 3/4/10 with 38,611 records was not received by the trade participant. A filer submitted an AD transaction on 3/4/10 at 11:09:04. ACE created the correct outbound response AC message and placed it on the correct outbound queue. However, the filer indicates that they have not received the message. A second filer reported the same issue. |
| 04/01/10 | ACE RLF entry summary rejected in error for "RLF REQUIRES CARGO RLSE CERTIFICATION". ACE is incorrectly rejecting RLF ACE entry summary correction (replacement AEs) attempts by brokers by requiring cargo selectivity certification again on entries that have already been processed for cargo selectivity. Only initial submissions of the AE should require a Y in the AE 10-record, position 40 - to certify for cargo release. Subsequent replacements of the entry summary should not. |
| 04/08/10 | Error in Validation of DOT Records in an ACE Entry Summary Batch Transaction. A large batch of ACE entry summaries is being rejected incorrectly for a validation of the DOT records. The large batch of entry summaries contained 334 entry summaries, each entry summary has 3 lines and each line has a DT1 and DT2 record. The validation which determines the number of DT records in an entry summary is being incorrectly applied to the entire batch. A single entry summary line may have up to 999 DT1 or DT2 records. Since there were over 999 DT1 (and DT2) records in the entire batch, the validation for loop exceeded (number of records permitted) was incorrectly applied to the entire batch of entry summaries and not to each individual entry summary. |
| 04/13/10 | "Additional ACE entry summary boundary testing issues. Due to an issue associated with large batch messages, the ESAR team initiated test cases to verify that ACE could handle all published maximums (primarily record types and repeating values within record types). 1. Entry summary (AE) transaction just under maximum record size did not process. 2. Entry summary with 8 HTS codes for each of 999 lines did not process. 3. 40-Record loop error does not reset the 40-record count" |
| 06/02/10 | Entry Summary Transactions Not Rejected by ACE for District/Port Restriction. The district/port of entry can conditionally be changed in a replacement entry summary transaction only when the entry summary is in trade control and there has been no cargo release information reported/on file in ACS. An ACE entry summary for which an entry (cargo release) was filed in ACS was not rejected by ACE when the filer attempted to submit an entry summary (AE) transaction with an entry district/port code different from the one filed for the entry in ACS. The ACE entry summary should have been rejected for ENTRY SUMMARY FILED IN ANOTHER PORT. |
| 06/09/10 | ACE ES Rejected in Error for Article Set Validation. An ACE entry summary transaction was incorrectly rejected for an article set business rule validation. In this situation ES lines 001 thru 005 comprised a set (set header and components), line 006 was a conventional article, and lines 007 thru 009 comprised another set (set header and components). Line 005 was incorrectly rejected by ACE indicating that the previous set was incomplete. |
| 06/09/10 | ACE Entry Summary Reject in Error for Non-Numeric Validation. An ACE entry summary (AE) transaction with all numeric data in the Softwood Lumber Export Price and/or Export Charges data fields was rejected in error from ACE as "...CONTAINS NON-NUMERICS". The data records show that the export price field (54-record, positions 6-15) and the export charges field (54-record, positions 16-25) are reported as numeric. However, the value reported in these fields was rejected as non-numeric. |
| 06/15/10 | ACE Entry Summary AX Response E1-Record Error. The E1-Record within the entry summary outbound response AX message conveys the final disposition of the entry summary and includes the Disposition Type Code (E1-record, position 3), Severity Code (E-1 record, position 4), and other related data elements. When an entry summary is unconditionally accepted, the Disposition Type Code will be “A” and the Severity Code with be a space. Examples show that the Disposition Type Code is “A” however, the Severity Code indicates “I” in error -- it should be a space. Other examples show the correct construction of the final E1-record for fatal rejects, Census warnings and informational notices. |
| 06/17/10 | ACE ES Missing AD/CVD Case - Generates ACE System Failure in Error. An ACE entry summary (AE) transaction which includes two 53-records for reporting AD/CVD case information and neither of the 53-records has a case number in positions 3-12 is responded to with an ACE SYSTEM FAILURE message in the outbound AX transaction. The correct reject response for each of the 53-records should be CASE NUMBER MISSING. |
| 06/22/10 | ACS Entry Summary Deleted in ACS - Not Deleted in the ACE Data Warehouse. As an example, an ACS entry summary entry type 42 was deleted by CBP on 4/26/10 was not deleted automatically from the ACE data warehouse which is used for ACE portal reports. |
| 06/22/10 | ACE Entry Summary Returns No Response AX Message. An ACE entry summary transaction (AE) with either or both a header (34-record) and/or line (62-record) fee and both of the totals records (89- and 90-records) not submitted, the entry summary is not processed in ACE and does not return an AX response message to the filer. |
| 07/01/10 | ACE System Failures for Multiple Ruling Details. Several ACE entry summaries (AE transactions) were filed in ACE production starting on Wednesday, 6/30/10, which included 2 Ruling Details (43-records). The entry summaries were responded to by ACE returning an AX outbound message indicating ACE System Failure. However, the entry summary AE transactions should have been rejected for OUT OF SEQUENCE RECORD FOUND IN GROUPING since one 43-record cannot follow another 43-record in a line item grouping. |
| 07/15/10 | ACE Entry Summary Not Rejected for Overlapping Invoice Data. An ACE entry summary transaction (AE) was processed successfully in ACE and persisted in the ACE data base with overlapping (duplicate) invoice data reported for the same entry summary line. The AE transaction included 2 42-records (in this case exact duplicate 42-records). The AE transaction should have failed and ACE should have generated the "LINE RANGE OVERLAP FOUND ON INVOICE" condition with an "INVLIN" signpost pointing to the first invoice line range of the second 42-Record. |
| 07/21/10 | AD/CVD Query - Party Records Not Provided in Error. The AD/CVD Case Information Query (ACE ABI app ids AD/AC) returns AD/CVD case details to the trade for Anti-Dumping and/or Countervailing Duty cases. There are 2 parties associated with a case -- the manufacturer and the foreign exporter. Information identifying these parties includes an identification number and a name. The AD/CVD Query output should include party records (the RC-record for the manufacturer and RD-record for the foreign exporter) when either or both fields (ID or Name) contain data. Currently, the party records are only returned when an ID code exists for either party. |
| 07/23/10 | ACE Control Y-Record - Record Count Errors. The ACE ABI CATAIR block control trailer output Y-record should contain a count of the number of records in the transaction output block (this excludes the B and Y records) in positions 13-17. However, in selected outbound applications either the count does not exist or it is in error. For outbound app id AC (response to the AD/CVD Case Information Query app id AD), the count does not exist. For outbound app id JD (response to the Entry Summary Query app id JC), the count is in error in some responses. For outbound app id TR (response to Importer/Consignee Create/Update app id TI), the count is in error in some responses. |
| 07/26/10 | ACE CATAIR Outbound Message Segmentation Issue. Several ACE CATAIR trade participants have reported that they do not receive complete ACE outbound messages for those messages which, due to their size, are segmented for transmission. ACE segments outbound response messages in 512K byte segments. Each segment is transmitted to the trade participant with MQ message information. Several trade participants have reported that they do not receive the complete message (all segments). However, recent research indicates that one filer is receiving all segments but receiving the segments out of sequence. |
| 07/28/10 | ACE System Failure. A filer submitted an ACE entry summary transaction (AE) yesterday, 7/27/10 at 14:19:37, which was responded to by ACE with an ACE System Failure outbound response message. |
| 08/03/10 | AD/CVD Case Information Rates Error in AC Response. The AD/CVD Case Information Query (app id AD/AC) in ACE returns the deposit rate details in the RF-record. The Ad Valorem (positions 21-26) and Specific (positions 28-35) Deposit Rates as returned from ACE are currently zero filled even when no deposit rate applies. However, the ACE ABI CATAIR AD/CVD Case Information Query chapter indicates “Space fill if a …Rate does not apply” for each of these fields. |
| 08/17/10 | ACE System Failures. At least 6 entry summary AE transactions submitted today, 8/17/10, have been responded to by ACE with an ACE system failure message in the outbound AX response message. (Potential issue with bond sufficiency validation.) |
| 08/19/10 | ACE entry summary incorrectly rejected for "PERIODIC STATEMENT REQUIRES ACE IMPORTER." A trade participant is unable to submit an ACE entry summary scheduled for periodic monthly statement. It appears that this is due to a very specific area that did not write over correctly into some specific database involving the IR numbers and port code when the importer was approved for monthly statement participation. The broker is able to schedule that same importer for periodic monthlies at other ports. |
| 08/19/10 | ACE System Failure. An ACE entry summary filed on 8/19/10 at 22:13 was rejected by ACE for an ACE System Failure response. (ACE issue with PGA record sets.) |
| 08/20/10 | ACE Entry Summary Incorrectly Rejected for Missing OI-Record. A PGA invoice description is required for the FCC PGA record grouping, however, an OI-record exists for the PGA records, it precedes the DOT record grouping and is to apply to all PGA record groupings on the same entry summary line. The CATAIR states that a single ‘PGA Invoice’ may be submitted for the Tariff/Value/Quantity that applies to ALL of the PGA form data submitted. |
| 09/01/10 | ACE Entry Summary Header Consignee Validation Error. An IR number correctly rejected as VOID when used in the line level delivered to party 47-record is erroneously accepted when used in the entry summary header 11-record Consignee data field. |
| 09/28/10 | EDI profile update issue. Updates made to an EDI profile in ACS production revising and adding data processing sites for a filer were processed by ACE in the incorrect sequence. The sequence should be FIFO and in this case was not. (Single occurrence of issue reported.) |
| 11/12/10 | HTS Number 99034005 Rejected in ACE. A filer submitted an ACE entry summary (AE) transaction on 11/11/10 using HTS number 99034005 which ACE rejected as HTS Number Not Active. The HTS number is active in ACS with a begin date of 092610 and an end date of 092511. |
| 11/23/10 | Issues with ACE ES Query Outbound Response. The outbound response (JD) transaction provides a similar set of records as the trade participant filed when submitting the entry summary to ACE. However, 2 issues have been identified as follows: In the outbound 50-record, the first quantity value should be right justified in positions 36-47 (right now it is left justified). The second quantity value and unit of measure for this HTS number do not appear on the 50-record output. |
| 11/29/10 | Importer/Bond Query Response Address Truncated. The Importer/Consignee Create/Update ACE ABI CATAIR transaction accepts, processes, and stores a street address containing 32 characters from the TI transaction T1-record, positions 48-79. However, when using the Importer/Bond Query (KI transaction) only 31 characters are returned in the KR outbound response. The full address should appear in K3-record, positions 3-34. However, only 31 characters are returned in record positions 3-33 are returned. |
| 12/02/10 | Duplicate AX Response Messages. An ACE entry summary (AE) transaction should in all cases be responded to by ACE with a single outbound AX response message back to the filer. In this scenario, a filer submitted an entry summary AE transaction to ACE on 11/29/10 at 17:52:17 to which ACE responded with 2 AX response messages at 17:52:17. The correlation ID of each of the 2 AX messages is identical to the correlation ID of the inbound AE message. |
| 12/06/10 | Invoice Indicator Not on Final Statements. A Preliminary Statement dated 11/29/10 shows an “I” in the Q2 record position 77. The Final for this statement dated 11/30/10 does not show an “I” in the Q2 record position 77 for this statement. The instructions distributed on 7/16/2010 discussed the program changes for CSMS 10-000165, referencing that both the Preliminary and Final Statements will have this indicator. It appears the indicator was not incorporated or is not working in the Final Statement process. |
| 1/6/2011 | ACE ES Versioning Issue. When an ACE entry summary in CBP control is edited and saved by a CBP user on the ACE portal, a new version of the entry summary is created in ACE. The minor portion (to the right of the decimal) of the ES version number should be incremented by 1. In the example found an entry summary was replaced eleven times by the trade participant and then edited on the ACE portal. ES version number 11.01 when edited and saved on the portal, incorrectly created version 11.11 and not 11.02. In addition, additional editing (and saving) of the entry summary failed to change the version number of the ES. |
| 1/13/2011 | Rejected ACE AE Does Not Delete Existing Entry Summary in ACE. When a second or subsequent ACE entry summary transaction (AE) is rejected by ACE for a fatal conventional business data validation, the AE is rejected. However, in this scenario, the existing entry summary (while still in trade control) in ACE should also be deleted. |
| 1/18/2011 | ACE Entry Summary Rejected in Error for No In-bond Number. An ACE entry summary transaction was incorrectly rejected by ACE for not including an in-bond number when an in-bond/in-transit date is reported. However, in the example, the in-bond/in-transit date in the 20-record, positions 52-57 is 012111. The in-bond number is in the second cargo manifest grouping (the 22 and 23 record sets). ACE should have accepted this AE transaction -- and does when the cargo manifest grouping with the in-bond number is reported as the first cargo manifest grouping in the AE. |
| 1/19/2011 | ACE Data Base Errors Cause Portal Functions to Fail. An ACE portal function performed by members of the trade causes a data base error and the portal function to fail. These failures have been documented in a few trouble tickets (and have been referred to as non-atomic batch failures): This error occurs when a trade user attempts to respond to a form for an ACS entry summary. |
| 1/25/2011 | ACE entry summary report AM-008 data discrepancy. Entry summary line item data is incorrectly displaying SPI codes which do not exist in ACS. |
(See ITT’s Online Archives or 01/21/11 news, 11012123, for BP summary of CBP’s most recent previous list of open issues, which included 52 open items.
See ITT's Online Archives or 04/14/09 news, 09041430 #1, for BP summary announcing that ESAR A2.2 was deployed on April 12th as scheduled.
See ITT's Online Archives or 04/07/09 news, 09040715, for recent BP summary on ESAR A2.2 portal changes.)