Customs Compliance in Software: The (a)(1)(A) List and Reasonable Care

'Reasonable care' sounds like a judgement call. In practice CBP has defined it through a records list and informed-compliance guidance, which makes it a systems requirement.

Dwayne ThompsonEngineering, standards & trade editor · Kingston

December 12, 2022 · 6 min read

A government building facade, illustrating customs reasonable-care obligations. · Image: Girder Group

“Reasonable care” reads like a standard a company can meet with good intentions. It is not. CBP has given it content through a defined records list and years of informed-compliance guidance, which turns a vague-sounding duty into something concrete: a set of records you either can produce, or cannot.

Key takeaways

Reasonable care is substantiated by records; the '(a)(1)(A) list' in 19 CFR Part 163 defines what CBP can demand.
CBP's informed-compliance publications spell out expectations, removing the 'we didn't know' defence.
The duty is continuous and importer-owned, even when a broker files the entry.
Meeting it is a systems problem: complete, retained, retrievable records tied to each entry.

How CBP made 'reasonable care' concrete

The reasonable-care standard makes importers responsible for the accuracy of their entries and for keeping the records that support them. CBP codified the demandable records at 19 CFR Part 163, the “(a)(1)(A) list”, so the question of what you must be able to produce is not left to interpretation.

CBP has also published extensive informed-compliance guidance describing its expectations on classification, valuation, country of origin, and more. That body of guidance narrows the room for a good-faith “we did not understand the requirement” defence: the expectations are public, and reasonable care is measured against them.

Crucially, the duty stays with the importer of record even when a customs broker files the entry. Outsourcing the filing does not outsource the responsibility, which means the importer must hold and be able to produce the underlying records itself.

“It turns a vague-sounding duty into something concrete: a set of records you either can produce, or cannot.”

How AI could address the gap

Reasonable care is, operationally, a records-completeness problem indexed to entries. The failure is rarely a bad decision; it is an entry whose supporting records cannot be produced on demand.

AI-assisted systems can reconcile each entry against the (a)(1)(A) record set, flag entries with missing or inconsistent documentation, and keep the trail retrievable for the retention period. The classification and valuation judgments stay with trade professionals; the machine keeps the file complete, the same completeness discipline we apply to UFLPA traceability.

Building the platforms, portals, and systems that make these obligations provable is what Girder Group does.

Sources

1.19 CFR Part 163, Recordkeeping (the '(a)(1)(A) list'), current text.Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
2.Informed Compliance Publications.U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Dwayne Thompson

Engineering, standards & trade editor · Girder Group · Kingston

Dwayne Thompson writes on compliance engineering, standards (NIST), and trade and logistics regulation (CBP, DOT, FMC), from Girder Group's Kingston desk.

Meet the desk