Per my phone conversation moments ago (yesterday now) with U.S. Customs Headquarters, their position with regard to softwood lumber entries filed on or after September 10^th - being the official and legally supportable "Effective Date" CVD bonds or cash deposits were mandatory - is based upon Headquarters’ Notice - "published in the Customs Bulletin" – and made available to the trade via A.B.I. (Automated Broker Interface) September 10^th. This Notice, made available to you on September 10^th, although lacking (as we charged), CLEAR "instructions" of any kind regarding bonding methodology or valuation, and resulting in non-enforcement of Headquarters’ intent of capturing this specific date by a number of field offices (some even to date), nevertheless has been ruled by Customs to qualify as their legal notification to the trade - locking in the September 10^th date. Page 4, paragraph. 4 of Customs’ September 10^th Notice reads: "Customs shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary net subsidy rate shown below: All Exporters – C-122-839-000 – 19.31%.

Customs Headquarters’ position is that it is not Customs’ field offices’ responsibility to provide further notification - it is the "Importer of Records’" responsibility, as required under "reasonable care", to comply with this legally served Notice.

Although Blaine and a number of other ports have been enforcing the September 10^th Notice at time of "Entry Summary" via "Reject", other ports have not, creating non-uniformity, which would appear to allow exporters to "Port Shop". Be advised of Customs’ position with regard to "reasonable case", as outlined in paragraph 3 of this Notice. Non compliance of Customs’ directive, regardless of the fact that a port has not taken action to "Reject", can result in sever penalties to the "Importer of Record" AND the entry filer/broker at time of liquidation.

It wasn’t until September 27^th (three weeks after-the-fact, and too damned late to be of any value) that Customs Headquarters notified the field offices that they were NOT to reject and/or require bonds or cash deposits on shipments released as "Entry" prior to September 10^th. Customs’ unlawful demand and subsequent delay in notification to the ports to cease and desist - resulting in unwarranted liabilities to Single Entry CVD bonds and/or cash deposits posted for those entries - is an issue to be taken up in our meetings next week in Washington, D.C. If no satisfaction is forthcoming from those meetings, and we lose the CVD/ADD case, it will be a matter for the courts to sustain or reject.

Included in Headquarters’ September 27^th Notice to the field offices was Commerce’s revision of their scope inclusions – capturing only articles classified under headings 4407.10.00, 4409.1010, 4409.10.20, and 4409.10.90. Customs had NOT intended to

release this information to the trade in any official capacity. After hearing our complaint,

it was decided to allow the field offices to paraphrase and disseminate - if they chose to do so. I informed Customs Headquarters yesterday, during our phone conversation, that both options were totally unacceptable! I allowed that due to the field offices’ past transgressions and lack of uniformity, costing us and our clients untold economic hardships, anything less than a "Directive" from Customs Headquarters - could not be construed by us or our clients as acceptable. I reminded them that Customs Headquarters agreed that they could NOT "Reject" and require CVD bonds and/or cash deposits for entries effected prior to September 10^th, and that they agreed to immediately instruct the ports of this fact – yet they DID NOT follow up. I reminded them that Customs Headquarters agreed that U.S. origin lumber processed in Canada could NOT be construed as benefiting from the alleged subsidies and, therefore, would not be subject to CVD liabilities - yet when it came time to back this up, they DID NOT, stating that because the language of Commerce’s Preliminary Determination did not exclude U.S. wood, even though Commerce, themselves, admitted that it was indeed "absurd" to imply that U.S. material should be included, and that they had, indeed, erred in their language, changes would not be implemented until our petition was legally filed and acted upon at such time that the ADD Preliminary Determination was addressed.

Headquarters has NOW (yesterday) agreed to send a Headquarters "Directive" clarifying these issues, promising, at least, to make it available to me. They promised it would be transmitted no later than October 3^rd. I had originally intended to transmit this Trade Notice yesterday, but wanted to wait until we were in receipt of Headquarters’ "Directive". I’ve now received it at 4:05 p.m., and am transmitting direct to you.

Kim and I will be leaving for Washington, D.C., tomorrow morning – returning the 13^th. We have meetings set up with Customs Headquarters and Treasury, as part of our Northern Border Customs Brokers Association, of which I am a Director, as well as separate meetings arranged with various individuals within Customs Headquarters, and meetings with our U.S. Congressional Representative. We hope it will be a productive week. Although the NBCBA meetings were scheduled months ago, and we couldn’t know that these issues were going to require so much of our time – we are somewhat nervous about being away from the office at this time. Mike Miller, with whom some of you have spoken, a licensed Customs Broker and very knowledgeable about all of your issues, will be acting in my place, until our return. We, of course, will be in daily contact with the office and can be reach through Mike. We hope nothing occurs while we are away, but rest easy that if something does, we will handle it.

Until then, we remain,

Respectfully,

Michael D. Jones, President