Department of Homeland Security
 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Penalty Process 

– Statute of Limitations 

OIG-12-131 September 2012
 
 

 

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

SEP 27 2012 

MEMORANDUM FOR:	 Allen Gina 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of International Trade 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Kevin K. McAleenan 

Acting Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Field Operations 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

FROM:	 Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT:	 U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Penalty Process – 

Statute of Limitations 

Attached for your action is our final report, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

Penalty Process – Statute of Limitations. We incorporated the formal comments from 

the Δ ́Ί ́ ϡμφΩΡμ ̮΢͆ Ωθ͆͊θ ΃θΩφ̼͊φΉΩ΢͞μ ͷ͔͔Ή̼͊μ Ω͔ International Trade and Field 

Operations in the final report. 

The report contains two recommendations aimed at improving the management and 

oversight of the penalties process. Your office concurred with all of the 

recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, 

we consider the recommendations resolved. Once your office has fully implemented 

the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so 

that we may close the recommendations. The memorandum should be accompanied by 

evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions and of the disposition of any 

monetary amounts. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing 

copies of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post 

the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John E. McCoy II, Deputy 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254-4100. 

Attachment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 1
 

Background ........................................................................................................................ 2
 

Results of Audit .................................................................................................................. 3
 

FP&F Field Offices’ Consistency in Following SOL Waiver Policy .......................... 4
 

HQ Office of Field Operations Oversight ............ .........................................................5
 

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 7
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis............................................................ 8
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology............................................ 10
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................... 12
 

Appendix C: Major Contributors to This Report ................................................ 15
 

Appendix D: Report Distribution ....................................................................... 16
 

Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FP&F Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures 

HQ Headquarters 

OFO Office of Field Operations 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SAMEPH Seized Asset Management and Enforcement Procedures Handbook 

SEACATS Seized Asset and Case Tracking System 

SOL statute of limitations 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-12-131 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary

U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for collecting revenues and 

enforcing trade compliance. In fiscal year 2010, CBP processed about $2 trillion in trade 

imports and collected approximately $29 billion in duties, fees, taxes, fines, and 

penalties. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) received 

correspondence from Senator Charles Grassley expressing concerns about alleged 

deficiencies in CBP’s revenue collection program, including non-collection of penalties. 

We initiated a series of audits, including this audit, to address Senator Grassley’s 

concerns. 

The objective of our audit was to determine whether CBP had effective processes in 

place to ensure that assessed penalties cases did not expire due to the statute of 

limitations. We reviewed CBP’s management and oversight of the penalties process as 

it pertains to penalty case statute of limitations. 

CBP has not fully established key management controls for the penalties process. Its 

Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures field offices do not consistently follow policies and 

procedures, and Headquarters Office of Field Operations does not have effective 

oversight and enforcement authority. As a result, CBP cannot ensure that penalties 

cases do not expire due to the statute of limitations. 

We recommended that CBP perform an organizational assessment to determine 

whether resources are appropriately allocated to ensure effective penalty case 

management. We also recommended CBP develop and implement a Headquarters 

oversight plan to ensure the office responsible for oversight of penalty case 

management has authority to monitor field offices’ compliance with CBP guidance. CBP 

concurred with both of our recommendations. 

 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-12-131
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

CBP is responsible for managing and securing our Nation’s borders while facilitating 

legal travel and trade. CBP is also responsible for collecting revenues such as duties, 

taxes, fees, fines, and penalties. In fiscal year 2010, CBP collected approximately 

$29 billion in duties, user fees, and excise taxes, which included $61 million in fines and 

penalties. 

When CBP discovers a violation of law, it has the authority to assess fines and penalties. 

Penalties can be assessed on commercial and noncommercial imports. Penalties serve 

as a trade enforcement tool intended to deter noncompliance with trade laws. The 

Office of International Trade’s Commercial Enforcement Policy Division develops 

national policy for commercial penalties. The Office of Field Operations (OFO), Fines, 

Penalties, and Forfeitures (FP&F) Division, implements the policy for commercial 

penalties, and also develops and implements policy for noncommercial penalties. 

There are 42 FP&F field offices operating under the OFO oversight authority. The OFO, 

FP&F Division, has oversight responsibility; however, Directors of Field Operations, Port 

Directors, and frontline supervisors are responsible for enforcing policies and 

procedures. FP&F field offices adjust resources to develop, adjudicate, and monitor all 

penalty cases, as well as manage other enforcement processes, which include liquidated 

damages and seizures (see table 1). 

Table 1: Breakdown of CBP’s FP&F Field Offices’ Enforcement Workload 

Case Types Percentage of 

Overall Caseload 

Penalty Cases 11

Liquidated Damages 20

Seizures 69

Source: FP&F, Carrier Fines and Seized Property Assessment, October 2011 

From October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2011, CBP closed 1,567 penalty cases that 

expired because of the statute of limitations (SOL) with assessed penalties totaling $758 

million. We reviewed 42 of these cases, which totaled $415 million. 

CBP has broad authority to remit, mitigate, cancel, or compromise claims for penalties. 

Its Seized Asset Management and Enforcement Procedures Handbook (SAMEPH) 

provides guidance for penalty case initiation, analysis, monitoring, and management to

maximize enforcement and compliance actions. There are three penalties for which the 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-12-131 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

statute of limitations varies based on levels of culpability. In penalties assessed under 

19 U.S.C. 1592 or 19 U.S.C. 1593a, the statute is five years from the date of the violation 

when the level of culpability is negligence or gross negligence and five years from the 

date of discovery when the level of culpability is fraud. In penalties assessed under 19 

U.S.C. 1641(d)(4), the statute is five years from the date of the violation when the level 

of culpability is not fraud and five years from the date of discovery when the level of 

culpability is fraud. 1

During the 5-year period, FP&F Officers receive and verify the timely and accurate 

submission of penalty payments, monitor penalty cases, and ensure the accuracy of 

revenue records prior to closing out penalty cases. CBP uses the Seized Asset and Case 

Tracking System (SEACATS) as the system of record for enforcement case information. 

SEACATS also provides a tracking and overdue alert system for managing penalty cases. 

Monthly SOL reports generated from SEACATS alert FP&F Officers of the length of time 

remaining on the SOL and if action is required. If less than 2 years remains, the FP&F 

Officer must solicit a waiver of the SOL and expedite the processing of the case. When 

the violator grants a waiver, the SOL is extended and CBP can have as much as an 

additional 2 years to process the penalty case.2

The SAMEPH also requires that Action Due reports be generated and action taken at 

least weekly. FP&F Officers are accountable for monitoring all outstanding cases and 

reviewing the Action Due report. This report allows FP&F Officers to— 

• Measure work produced; 

• Verify office case load and backlog; and 

• Track actions required to process the case.

Results of Audit

CBP does not have effective processes in place to ensure that penalty cases do not 

expire due to the SOLs. According to CBP documents we reviewed, CBP closed 1,567 

penalty cases from October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2011 because SOLs expired. 

Although CBP issued policies and procedures for penalty case management, FP&F field 

offices did not consistently follow SOL waiver policies and request SOL waivers timely. 

Available resources limit the frequency of CBP Headquarters’ (HQ’s) onsite survey visits; 

the annual field office self-inspections are not validated; and the type of data used for 

Monthly Assessment Reports is inconsistent from month to month. Moreover, OFO’s 

1

 19 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1621. 2 Seized Asset Management and Enforcement Procedures Handbook released in January 2002; SOL Report 

Memorandum, February 23, 2010.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-12-131 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

FP&F Division is responsible for policy implementation and oversight of FP&F field 

offices to ensure compliance with policies and procedures, but has limited enforcement 

authority. Because of these limitations, CBP does not have reasonable assurance that 

penalty cases are finalized before the SOL expires, or that penalties serve as an effective 

trade enforcement tool. 

FP&F Field Offices’ Consistency in Following SOL Waiver Policy 

FP&F field offices do not always request SOL waivers in accordance with 

established CBP guidance. The SAMEPH requires field offices to monitor SOL 

reports monthly and to solicit an SOL waiver from the alleged violator(s) when 

less than 2 years remains before the SOL expires. We reviewed 42 closed 

penalty cases from five FP&F field offices. FP&F field offices failed to solicit an 

SOL waiver in a timely manner in nine of those cases. In 13 penalty cases, SOL 

waiver requests were not required for the following reasons: (1) importers filed 

for bankruptcy; (2) cases were pending a write-off decision; (3) there was no 

known address for the violator; or (4) CBP closed the case before the SOL 

expired.3 The FP&F field offices appropriately requested waivers in the 20 

remaining penalty cases (see table 2). 

Table 2: Analysis of 42 Penalty Case SOL Waiver Requests 

Description of SOL Waivers Number

SOL Waivers Requested Appropriately 20 

SOL Waivers Not Required 13 

SOL Waivers Not Requested Timely 9 

Total 42 

Source: DHS OIG SOL Waiver Analysis. Results are based on review and analysis of 42 closed penalty case 

samples provided by CBP OFO FP&F Division extracted from SEACATS. 

Officials in one of the FP&F field offices we visited explained that they might not 

always request waivers in a timely manner because they strive to facilitate 

cooperative relationships with attorneys, who they know will not sign a waiver 

until a month or so before the SOL expires. When FP&F field offices do not 

request SOL waivers in time, CBP is at a higher risk of losing penalty cases

because the SOL has expired. 

3

 A CBP FP&F Officer said, “If a penalty was already closed prior to the SOL and opened and reclosed to 

take ‘administrative action,’ the SEACATS system will show the latest closure date and the case will show 

up as an expired SOL penalty case.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-12-131 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

At three of the seven FP&F field offices we visited, personnel said that they 

lacked resources. An FP&F Officer said that it was common for Paralegal 

Specialists to have caseloads of approximately 1,000 cases at any given time. 

These caseloads typically consist of penalties, liquidated damages, and seizures. 

The FP&F Officer provided printouts showing that liquidated damages and 

seizures made up the majority of the caseloads and indicated that working on 

penalties was not the top priority. 

We reviewed two documents from a workforce analysis study conducted by the 

OFO to determine the proper grade for the FP&F Officer position and to evaluate 

the organizational structure at the FP&F field offices. The documents showed 

that penalty caseloads increased by 52 percent from 2001 through 2007. The 

OFO developed three alternative organizational structures to support its 

proposed upgrade of the FP&F Officer. According to a CBP official, the FP&F 

Officer positions were upgraded, but the recommended organizational changes 

were not implemented. The authority to make staffing and organizational 

changes to FP&F field offices resides with the Port Directors, who report to the 

Directors of Field Operations, within OFO. As a result, FP&F field offices may not 

have adequate resources or the appropriate organizational structure to ensure 

that penalty cases do not expire because of the SOL. 

HQ Office of Field Operations Oversight 

CBP’s HQ OFO oversight of the FP&F field offices needs improvement. CBP 

officials said that they provide oversight of field offices using several methods, 

including onsite surveys, self-inspections, and Monthly Assessment Reports. The 

frequency and number of onsite survey visits are limited due to resource 

constraints; annual field office self-inspections are not validated by OFO, and the 

type of data used for Monthly Assessment Reports is inconsistent from month to 

month. Additionally, CBP HQ’s OFO, FP&F Division, does not have enforcement 

authority to require FP&F field offices to adhere to policies and procedures and 

manage penalty cases effectively.

Onsite Field Office Surveys 

According to OFO’s FP&F Division personnel, onsite FP&F field office surveys are 

the most effective oversight method because they allow for a direct assessment 

of FP&F field office operations. Since January 2010, the FP&F Division has 

surveyed eight FP&F Offices out of 42, or 19 percent. OFO officials said that 

limited resources prevented additional onsite surveys. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-12-131 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

FP&F Field Office Self�Inspection Reports 

OFO also uses annual self-inspection reports to provide oversight of FP&F field 

offices. Self-inspection reports assess field office compliance with enforcement 

case processing standards, which include penalties. When asked whether OFO 

verifies the accuracy and completeness of the self-inspection reports, an OFO 

official said that it takes the reports at face value.

Monthly Assessment Reports 

A third oversight method that the OFO uses is the FP&F field offices’ Monthly 

Assessment Reports. The OFO creates and analyzes Assessment Reports to 

determine FP&F field offices’ compliance with CBP guidance. Although the 

Monthly Assessment Reports add value to CBP’s oversight ability, in some 

instances the data reported in the Reports are inconsistent. For example, we 

looked at Monthly Assessment Reports for the month of October for 2009, 2010, 

and 2011. The reports contained data on the current workload of the FP&F field 

offices, outstanding penalties at each FP&F field office, and penalty amounts 

collected in the prior month. Some of the Monthly Assessment Reports did not 

contain data for all 42 FP&F field offices. In addition, there were inconsistencies 

in the type of data reported in each Monthly Assessment Report. For example, 

two of the reports contained data on SOL expirations but one of them did not. 

CBP guidance requires FP&F field offices to monitor case SOL expirations 

monthly, and HQ uses this information to improve management of the penalty 

process. A CBP official said that the Monthly Assessment Reports are a work in 

progress and that they are always being modified. In addition, the official said 

that due to system upgrades, some of the data might have been lost and not 

captured in the Monthly Assessment Report. 

Enforcement Authority 

The OFO’s organizational structure does not support effective management of 

the penalty program. Port Directors and Directors of Field Operations have 

primary responsibility for enforcing policies at the FP&F field offices; however, 

OFO has oversight responsibility for the field offices. As a result, OFO is limited 

in its ability to require FP&F field offices to adhere to CBP policies and procedures. 

When OFO found FP&F field offices to be noncompliant with policies and 

procedures for managing penalty cases, it issued recommendations to the 

Directors of Field Operations, who were responsible for taking corrective action. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-12-131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Conclusion 

Although CBP has established policies and procedures for managing penalty 

cases, FP&F field offices are not consistent in following them. Because of limited 

resources and enforcement authority, CBP HQ needs to identify alternatives to 

onsite surveys and self-inspections to improve oversight and penalty case 

management. If not, CBP risks losing penalty cases because of expired SOLs and 

cannot ensure that penalties serve as an effective trade enforcement tool. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that CBP’s Assistant Commissioners for Office of International 

Trade and Office of Field Operations: 

Recommendation #1: 

Perform an organizational assessment to determine whether resources are 

appropriately allocated to ensure effective penalty case management at Fines, 

Penalties, and Forfeitures field offices. 

Recommendation #2: 

Develop, document, and implement a Headquarters oversight plan to ensure 

that the office responsible for oversight of penalty case management has the 

authority to monitor field offices’ compliance with CBP guidance and to ensure 

effective processing of penalty cases. At a minimum, the plan should— 

•	 Ensure that monthly assessment data are consistent; 

•	 Review evaluation standards for onsite visits, to include validation of 

annual self-inspection reports; 

•	 Develop a schedule of onsite field office oversight visits to ensure that 

each office has effective management controls; and 

•	 Develop protocols to ensure that Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture field 

offices implement program improvements resulting from the Office of 

Field Operations’ oversight efforts. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7	 OIG-12-131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP submitted formal comments to our report, and a copy of its response is 

included as appendix B. CBP also provided technical comments, and we have 

made changes to the report based on those comments. Additionally, CBP 

concurred with both our recommendations and our analysis of its concurrence 

follows. 

Recommendation #1: 

Perform an organizational assessment to determine whether resources are 

appropriately allocated to ensure effective penalty case management at Fines, 

Penalties, and Forfeitures field offices. 

CBP Comments to Recommendation #1 

CBP concurred with the recommendation. The workload staffing model is under 

review by DHS. Once approved it will be provided to Congress and will be the 

basis for the OFO FP&F field office’s staffing. OFO estimates to complete 

required actions by June 1, 2013. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation to be open and resolved until the OIG has 

received and evaluated the supporting documentation of the workload model 

and the Resource Allocation Model; and that CBP has determined resources are 

appropriately allocated at FP&F field offices to ensure effective penalty case 

management. 

Recommendation #2: 

Develop, document, and implement a Headquarters oversight plan to ensure 

that the office responsible for oversight of penalty case management has the 

authority to monitor field offices’ compliance with CBP guidance and to ensure 

effective processing of penalty cases. 

CBP Comments to Recommendation #2 

CBP concurred with the recommendation. The OFO FP&F Division is developing, 

documenting and implementing a headquarters oversight plan to ensure that it 

has the authority to monitor field office’s compliance with CBP guidance and to 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-12-131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

ensure effective processing of penalty cases. CBP indicates that the FP&F 

Division has taken corrective actions to address this recommendation and 

expects to implement all corrective actions by January 31, 2013. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation open and resolved because CBP’s plan of 

action and milestones for completion satisfy the intent of the recommendation. 

However, the recommendation will remain open until we can verify, through a 

review of supporting documentation, to include, the Dashboard reports from 

EDW; copies of Monthly Assessment Summary reports provided to FP&F Division 

senior management; a plan of expected site survey visits for 2013; the results of 

the FP&F Division’s Office of Internal Affairs Management Inspection Division’s 

focused assessment results and recommendations of the FP&F Division’s 

oversight protocols; and the revised Self-Inspection Case Processing worksheet. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-12-131 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

This report provides the results of our audit to determine whether CBP has an effective 

process to ensure that penalty cases do not expire because of the SOL. 

To determine the existence and implementation of CBP’s policies and procedures for 

oversight of the penalties process, we reviewed the SAMEPH, related CBP 

memorandums provided to CBP field offices, a workload study for years 2001–2007, 

FP&F Division site survey reports, and Monthly Assessment Reports. 

We interviewed personnel responsible for the initiation, implementation, and 

monitoring of the penalties process at seven out of 42 ports of entry with FP&F field 

offices. We visited the following field offices: Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; El Paso, TX; 

Milwaukee, WI; Newark, NJ; New York (JFK), NY; and Philadelphia, PA. We interviewed 

CBP officials involved in the implementation and oversight of the penalties process, 

including the Office of International Trade, OFO; the Internal Affairs Management 

Inspections Division at Internal Affairs; the Director of the National Finance Center in 

Indianapolis, IN; and Assistant Chief Counsels in New York, NY; El Paso, TX; and the 

National Finance Center in Indianapolis, IN. 

We reviewed 42 closed penalty cases with expired SOLs to determine whether field 

offices processed cases in compliance with the SAMEPH and related CBP guidance. We 

judgmentally selected the expired cases from the total of 1,567 penalty cases closed by 

CBP from fiscal year 2009 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. 

Figure 3 shows the assessed dollar amount of our sample against the approximate 

assessed penalties total for the fiscal years reviewed. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-12-131 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 3: Closed Expired Penalty Cases for Fiscal Years 2009 Through Second 

Quarter 2011 

Source: Data provided by CBP on closed expired penalty cases for fiscal years 2009 through second quarter 

$758.79 

$415.48 

$0 $500 

In Millions of Dollars 

Sum of 

Assessed 

Penalty 

Amount for 

our 

judgemental 

sample of 42 

cases 

Sum of 

Assessed 

Penalty 

Amount for 

universe of 

1,567 cases 

fiscal year 2011. DHS OIG analysis of CBP data of assessed penalties and the number of penalty cases for 

fiscal year 2009 through second quarter fiscal year 2011. 

The cases selected accounted for approximately $415 million of the approximate 

$758.8 million in assessed penalties during fiscal year 2009 through the second quarter 

of fiscal year 2011. We selected cases based on the case status text used to close the 

case in SEACATS, our planned field office visits, and cases greater than the assessed 

penalty average (mean) of $1.37 million. We reviewed penalty case documentation 

provided by field offices and case information retrieved from SEACATS by CBP HQ 

personnel. To support our audit objective and ensure the accuracy of SEACATS data, we 

verified SEACATS data by comparing them with official penalty case files obtained from 

selected FP&F field offices. 

We conducted this performance audit between May 2011 and January 2012 pursuant to 

the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our

findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives.

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-12-131 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

! 300 Pennsylvania V(" m~ NW 

Washington, DC 20229 

u.s. Customs and 

Border Protection 

September 12. 2012 

Mr. Charles K. Edwards 

Acting Inspector General 

U.S. Dt:partmelll of Homeland SecUlity 

245 Murray Drive, SW. Building 41 0 

Washington, DC 20528 

Re: Draft U IU Report, ·'U.S. Customs and Dorder Protection' s Penalty Process-Statllle 

of Limitations-For OHicial Use On ly" (Project No. 11-026-AUD-CI3P) 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Th;mk you for the opportunity to rcview and comment on this report. The U.S. Customs 

and Harder Protection (CHP) apprec iates the Department of Homeland Security O ffi ce of 

Inspecto r General's (OIU 's) work in plann ing and conducting its review and issuing this 

report. 

The draft report included two reeommendmions the cap Office of Tntemational Trade 

(01') and Office of Field Oper<ltions (OFO) can take to enrumce its over<lll effectiveness. 

Actions are already underway to implement these recoillmendations. The Onice of Field 

Operations has been iuentified as the lead oHice Jor each recommendation. eBP concurs 

with both of the recommendations. To the extent the corrective action plan requires joi nt 

action by the Offices of Field Operations and the Office ofInternational Trade. oro 

obtained concurrence from the OT, Officc of Regulations and Ru lings. Th~ 

recommendations are as follows: 

Recomm enda tion fH: Perform an organizational assessment to determine whether 

resources nre appropriately allocated to ensure effective penalty case manilgemcnt at 

Fines, Penalties, and forfeitures field offices. 

ReSI)Ollse: Cuncur. The Office ofField Opt:raliuns (OFO) Cuslums and Burdt:r 

Protection Oificer (CBPO) workload staffmg model is currently being approved by the 

Department of Homeland Security for release to Congress. When approved by thc 

Department, this model and it'> methodology will provide a basis for the OFO Fines, 

Penalties and Forfeitures (FP&F) Division staffing model design. 01·0 will integlate 

eftarts to le verage best practices and idt:1l1ify rdaliunships belwt:en CBPOs, who create 

the FP&F case load. and the FP&F specialists who process the cases. To date FP&F has 

completed the following: 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-12-131 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

• Workgroup meeting held to develop new position descriptions CPOs) and update 

existing PDs for paTfilegnl speciniists in support of newly created FP&F office 

organizati onal structures. 

• Completed a procurement request to obwin COnirdctor Sllpports services to 

develop a Resource Allocation Model (RAM) for the FP&F Division. 

• Newly created and revised POs were submitted to the OFO, Mission Suppon 

(MS) for processing with the Office of Human Resources Management (HRM). 

FP&F will distribute the new PDs to the fi eld to be provided to employees once 

processed by MS and HRM. Additionall y, FP&F will continue worki ng with 

procuremenl to obmin tI contractor to create the RAM for the FP&F nj visilln. Estimated 

Completion Date (ECD): June 1.2013. 

Recommendation #2: Develop, document, and implement a headquarters oversight plan 

to ensure that the office responsible for oversight of penalty case management has the 

authority to monitor fie ld offices' compliance with CBP guidance and to ensure effective 

processing of penalty cases. At a minimum. the plan should-

• Ens ure that munthly a"sessrllt::nl data are consistent; 

• Review evaluation standards for onsile visits, to inc lude validation of annual selfinspection reports; 

• Develop a schedule of onsile fie ld office oversight visits to ensure that each office 

ha s effective management controls; and 

• Develop protocols to ensure that Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture field offices 

implement program improvements resulting from the Offi ee of Field Operations' 

oversight efforts. 

Response : Concur. The OFO FP&F Division is developing, documenting, and 

implementing a headquarters oversight plan to ensure that it has the authority to monitor 

fi eld offices' compliance with CBP guidance lInu to ensun.: effective processing of 

penalty cases. 

In fUl1herance, of this oversight plan, to date, lhe FP&F Division hits taken the fo llowing 

action: 

I) Developed standardi zed dashboard repons in Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) for 

use as an oversight tool by all Directors of Field Operations' staff and FP&F officers. 

These reports ensure co nsistent data retri eval and bring data reporting requ ircmcnts in 

line with headquarters poli cy. Under this schema, data repon parameters are controlled 

by FP&F Divisio n. Deployed dashboard for testing al Houston amI Laredo Field Offices 

and they continue to be deployed during sitc surveys and EDW training sessions. Full 

deployment of dashboards should be completed by October 3 1,201 2, Monthly 

Ass~ssmt! t Rt!poning nf FP&F offices has been restruclUred to be more tightl y focused. 

Howcvcr, periodically. the report will be readjusted to meet policy requirements and 

address specific areas of concern. A revised Monthly Assessment l{eport Summary will 

be tJistribllted to FP&F Division senior management beginning in September 2012 and 

will be distributed 1110nthly. 

2 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-12-131 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

2) The Office of Internati onal Trade, Commercial Enforcement Policy Division (CEPD) 

hfl!' heen eoll ahnratin g \...-[th the FP&F Division to provide staffsuppot1 nnd budget 

resources for oversight vi.',<its. ThL" will ensure more effecti ve assessment ofpenahy 

e1HCS and marc frequent cva luation of effecti ve managemcnt conlrol of FP&F offices. 

• CEPD has already provided funds and staffing to the FP&F Di vision for field 

oversight visits for August and September 20 12. 

3) At the request of the FP&F Di visio n, the Offiee of Intemal Affairs (1A), Management 

Inspection Division, will be conducting a focused assessment of the FP&F Division's 

oversight protocols, including providing recommcndations for strenglhening them. Upon 

completion of the locused assessment, FP&f 'A'ill implement lA' s recommendations 

designed to improve their oversight protocols. 

4) The FP&F Division has rcvised its Self-lnspection Case Processing worksheet to 

reflect more meaningful questions designed to more adequately assess the ficld's 

compliance. The new worksheet will he acti ve heginning with the 201 3 Self-lnspecli ot1 

Program cyclc. 

ECU: January 3 1, 2U13 

Agai n. lhank yuu fo r tht: oppurtuni1y 1u rt::view and comment on this draft re porl. 

Tec hn ical comments were provided under separate cover. Please fee l free to contact me 

or Mr. Joseph Westmoreland, Deputy Director, Management Inspecti ons Divi~ion , at 

(202) 325-7556, if you have any qucmions. We look fOl"v ... ard to work ing with yOll in the 

ruture. 

s;ercl~/~ 

~!~~r'a .. James F. Tomsheck 

Assistant Commis .. ~ioncr 

Otlice of Inte rnal Affairs 

3 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-12-131 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Major Contributors to This Report

Paul Wood, Director 

Cecilia Carroll, Audit Manager

Frank Lucas, Project Lead 

Gary Alvino, Program Analyst 

Melissa Woolson, Program Analyst 

Vashti Gordon, Program Analyst 

Kevin Dolloson, Communications Analyst 

Bradley Mosher, Independent Referencer 

Marisa Coccaro, Independent Referencer

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-12-131 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-12-131 
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your 

request to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

For additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter 

at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any 

other kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov 

and click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and 

submit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission 

through our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and 

reviewed by DHS OIG. 

Should you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing 

to: DHS Office of Inspector General, Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline, 245 

Murray Drive, SW, Building 410/Mail Stop 2600, Washington, DC, 20528; or you may 

call 1 (800) 323-8603; or fax it directly to us at (202) 254-4297. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.