Skip to content
English
Contact us
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.

Responsibility Differences Between ISF and AMS

Responsibility Differences Between ISF and AMS

***Incorporating official terminology and references from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

The responsibilities for Importer Security Filing (ISF) and the Automated Manifest System (AMS) differ significantly.

ISF (Importer Security Filing):

  • The Importer of Record is responsible for submitting the ISF.(U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
     
  • Each importer must possess a valid bond—either a Single Transaction Bond (STB) or a Continuous Bond (CB)—to cover ISF obligations.
     
  • When filing an ISF, the importer must provide their bond information (U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
     
  • If an ISF is filed late, inaccurately, or incompletely, CBP may assess liquidated damages of up to $5,000 per violation, and the importer of record listed on the ISF will be held liable. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
     

AMS (Automated Manifest System):

  • AMS filings are typically the responsibility of the carrier or a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC). 
  • The filing party must have a valid Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC) and an active International Carrier Bond (Type 3 bond).(U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
     
  • Only entities with the appropriate SCAC and bond can transmit AMS data to CBP.(U.S. Customs and Border Protection )
     

Key Takeaway:

  • While ISF filings can be submitted using any valid SCAC code, the critical factor is the Importer of Record and their associated bond information. 
  • The SCAC used for ISF submission does not affect liability; the importer listed on the ISF is ultimately responsible for compliance.
  • If there are issues with the ISF submission, customers using eFreight SCAC (8EFT) can contact CBP directly for inquiries.