Thank you, Bev, for setting the two texts side by side.
On your first point, kindly note the notice does not settle it. In 91 FR 53627 the broker ban reads "in place of the IOR's" phone and email, enforcement reaches "new and existing importers of record", and the word consignee never appears. Nor does the FAQ, still live on CBP's page today. On your second point, the March 2019 grandfathering goes unmentioned too.
May I suggest asking IORProgram@cbp.dhs.gov in writing before Friday. If I read Section III rightly, a void notice goes to the email most recently submitted: on those records, your own.
Has anyone had CBP say whether a consignee record counts as an IOR here? Wishing your Friday a quiet one.
Nothing in print since August 19. FAQ untouched since June 2024.
Notice comes to us, not the consignee.
Thank you for checking, Bev. Your last line is the one that worries me.
On correcting versus waiting, kindly note the asymmetry. CBP's voided record page gives an update route while a record still stands, but asks five working days to process a reinstatement once a number is voided, with the number dead throughout. Both routes want a power of attorney, and on a consignee who is not your client you may hold none. That is the trap the FAQ built.
On the inbox, the address on file is yours, so nobody outside your office learns of it. May I suggest a named person on it Friday. On entries already filed against a voided number, CBP has not said anywhere I can find. Wishing you a dull Friday.
CBP still silent. No POA: their officer signs the 5106, their phone, their email. Calling those consignees today.