5.I.1. General provisions

Monitoring by the economic operator and obligation to notify changes

Periodic monitoring is a fundamental responsibility of the economic operator. It should be part of your internal control systems. The economic operator must be able to demonstrate how monitoring is carried out and show its results. You should review your processes, risks and systems to reflect any significant changes in your operations. Customs authorities must be informed of such changes.

Article 23(2) of the UCC also establishes the legal requirement that the holder of the AEO authorisation must inform the customs authorities without delay of all factors arising after the decision that may influence its continuation or content. Although this depends largely on the AEO involved and the list is therefore not exhaustive, examples of cases in which customs should be informed are provided in Annex 4 of these Guidelines.

AEOs shall inform the issuing customs authority of any changes related to any other relevant approval, authorization, or certification granted by other authorities of the Administration that may have an impact on the AEO authorization (for example, withdrawal of AA or EC status).

AEOs shall ensure that they are in possession of the original documentation, including documented results and reports on revalidation procedures that may be required by customs authorities.

To ensure that AEOs are aware of this obligation, the competent customs authority may, for example:

Provide examples of the information that must be communicated to the competent customs authority in the written decision, letter, etc. to be sent to the AEO after the AEO authorization has been issued. In this context, Annex 4 to these Guidelines may be an important tool.

Notify the AEO of the relevant Customs Administration contact point for the communication of all information related to your authorization.

Send an email message (p. e.g., in the email with which the Customs Administration provides the AEO logo to the economic operator) to the AEO contact person in the company, emphasizing this obligation and providing the opportunity to communicate relevant changes.

When customs officials detect an unannounced change, they should send a "warning" email to the AEO's contact person at the company, emphasizing that such information should be reported to the appropriate customs authority.

Send periodically (p. e.g., annually) a short "recall" questionnaire (using some questions from the CAE) to the AEO contact person (via email), asking about possible changes to the relevant criteria.

Monitoring by customs authorities

Customs authorities conduct ongoing monitoring, including the control of the AEO's daily activities and visits to facilities. Its objective is the early detection of any signs of non-compliance, and if difficulties or non-compliance are detected, it should lead to the adoption of rapid action.

Pursuant to Article 23(5) and Article 38(1) of the UCC, the AEO status is subject to monitoring. Furthermore, given that the validity of the AEO authorization is not limited, it is of great importance that the criteria and conditions for obtaining AEO status be periodically evaluated.

At the same time, monitoring can also provide a better understanding of the AEO's business activities, which may even lead customs authorities to recommend to the latter a more effective way of using customs procedures or customs regulations in general.

In this regard, it is important for the competent customs authority to develop, in collaboration with the AEO, a system for monitoring compliance with the conditions and criteria of the authorization. Any control measures taken by the customs authorities must be recorded.

According to Article 35 of the CAU AE, "the customs authorities of the Member States shall without delay inform the competent customs authority of any circumstances arising after the granting of the AEO status which may influence its maintenance or content.

The competent customs authority shall provide all relevant information at its disposal to the customs authorities of the other Member States in which the AEO carries out customs-related activities. When a customs authority revokes a favorable decision taken on the basis of the AEO status, it shall notify the customs authority that granted the status.

Where the AEOS is an accredited agent or a known consignor as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and complies with the requirements set out in Regulation (EU) No 185/2010, the competent customs authority shall immediately provide the relevant national authority responsible for civil aviation security with the following minimum information concerning its AEO status:

the AEOS authorisation, including the name of the authorisation holder and, where applicable, any amendment or revocation thereof, or the suspension of the authorised economic operator status and the reasons for such suspension;

Information on whether the specific location in question has been visited by customs authorities, the date of the last visit and whether the visit took place for the purposes of the authorization, reassessment or monitoring process;

the reassessments of the AEOS authorization and their results.

National customs authorities shall establish, in agreement with the relevant national authority responsible for civil aviation security, the detailed arrangements for the exchange of information not covered by the electronic system referred to in Article 30 of this Regulation.

The national authorities responsible for civil aviation security processing the relevant information shall use it exclusively for the purposes of the relevant accredited agent or known consignor programmes and shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of the information.

Although the legislation does not require a specific method for establishing a monitoring system, it is generally most appropriate for the competent customs authority to develop a monitoring plan. This plan could summarize all the findings of each audit and, if necessary, suggest corrective actions (although the operator is free to seek a solution different from the suggested measure).

The supervision of AEO operators by the competent customs authority may consist of:

ensure that the AEO implements corrective measures effectively;

monitor AEO operations and existing risks and prevent new risks from emerging.

Regardless of how the customs authorities decide to organize monitoring, whether as a specific plan or as part of the final report, the following should be taken into account:

Audit results: Follow-up should be based primarily on the AEO's risk profiles assessed by the auditors during the audit activities performed, including the actions recommended for the AEO to take.

Recourse to Article 28, paragraphs 2 or 3, of the CAU AE in relation to holders of a security and safety certificate issued on the basis of an international convention, an international standard of the International Organization for Standardization or a European standard of a European standardization body and accredited agents or known issuers: When granting AEO status, it is important to consider these situations, where other relevant accreditations or certifications (e.g., AA, EC, etc.) granted by other government authorities have been used.

Early warning signs: As mentioned above, the AEO is legally required to inform the competent customs authority of any significant changes. Changes made by the AEO may result in customs authorities determining the need for a reassessment. It is important that the AEO clearly understands his or her obligations and how to communicate any changes to the relevant customs authority.

Customs authorities need to be able to continuously and thoroughly check whether the operator continues to control its activities, as well as all identified risks and changes in the situation (have new risks emerged? Are the administrative organization and internal control system still as effective as they were at the time of the audit?). There are several ways in which customs authorities can obtain early indications of new risks and information, including:

random checks of AEO declarations;

physical inspections of goods;

the analysis of information available in internal customs databases;

audits other than those for monitoring or re-evaluation of the AEO (e.g. e.g., an audit carried out under simplified procedures, or an application for authorised depositary status);

the evaluation of any changes observed in the company's behavior or in the modalities of exchanges.

Risk monitoring: New risks and situations should be assessed through monitoring. If any of the elements of the assessment lead to the conclusion that the operator does not address the identified risks or has failed to address them adequately, the customs authorities will inform the operator accordingly. The operator must take action to remedy the situation. Once again, the customs authority will be obliged to evaluate these actions. The assessment may also lead to the conclusion that one or more of the criteria and conditions should be reassessed, or that the AEO status should be suspended or revoked immediately.
- The monitoring activities to be planned must be based on the risk analysis carried out at the various stages (examinations prior to granting the status, management of the granted authorization, etc.). There are several factors that can influence such activities:

the type of authorization obtained: While monitoring of some criteria, such as proven solvency, can be carried out from an administrative centre, monitoring of the safety and security criterion for obtaining an AEOS will generally require an on-site visit;

the stability of the economic operator: whether or not there are frequent changes in locations, markets, key personnel, systems, etc.;

the size and number of company locations;

The role of the AEO in the supply chain: whether the AEO has physical access to the goods or acts as a customs agent;

the strength of internal controls applied to business processes and whether or not these processes are outsourced;

the recommendation or not, during the AEO audit, of follow-up actions or minor improvements to processes or procedures.

Consequently, the frequency and nature of monitoring activities vary depending on the AEO involved and the associated risks. However, given the specific nature of the safety and security criteria, in the case of AEOS, an on-site visit is recommended at least once every three years.

Special attention should also be paid when the economic operator granted AEO status has been established for less than three years. In these cases, customs authorities must conduct exhaustive monitoring during the first year following the granting of AEO status.

It is also important to note that the development of the monitoring plan and, in particular, visits to the AEO facilities must be addressed within the context of general customs activities. Customs authorities must coordinate and take into account any other audit and monitoring activities planned for the economic operator concerned. Duplication of inspections should be avoided as far as possible.

In cases where Article 28(2) or (3) of the AE CAU applies, any information available from other authorities of the Administration may also be used in the planning of any control activity in order to avoid duplication of examinations, both for the benefit of the customs authorities and in relation to economic operators.

Monitoring activities may result in specific actions by the competent customs authority. These specific actions must be documented. The documentation may take, for example, the following forms:

an update of the monitoring plan,

a reduced audit report,

the conclusions and results of the audit team, etc.

This documentation will indicate which criteria have been checked and what the results of the checks are.