1) Leverage your previous actual “day-of” experience to shape your next preparation–Again, obvious are things such as topic areas that need to be covered more thoroughly, but you should also pay attention to details such as how early to get to the exam site, where to sit, time management, transferring answers from the exam booklet to the scantron, dealing with tough sections, and so on.  Recall the mental and test-taking errors that you made and incorporate methods of reducing or avoiding those types of errors into your preparation and practice for the next attempt.

2) Practice with more actual CBE questions–If you studied hard for the previous attempt, you will most likely be fairly prepared to take any exam as far as being able to recognize the topics or issues raised in questions.  Use questions to review topics, drill with several questions in the same topic area, and practice test-taking techniques (circling key words, wrong answer choice elimination, and time management) by taking old exams.

3) Expand highlighting–Even if you feel as though you highlighted well and have plenty of notes from your previous attempt, continue to find opportunities to highlight parts of your regulations, tariff schedule,  and directives.  If you did NOT highlight well or study your texts and materials sufficiently last time, now is the time to do so.   (SJC is persuaded that the exam can NOT be passed without basic studying: reading, highlighting and taking notes.)

Again, the serious and committed exam candidate WILL succeed eventually on the exam and will take a pro-active approach in making adjustments in preparation for the next attempt.  SJC is happy to provide support as necessary and wishes you smooth sailing!

Of course, many would argue that an exam that has a failure rate of over 90% must inherently be unfair.  But, because the exam is merely one part of a process that produces licensed customs brokers, one response to such an argument is that the system may be calibrated to produce a certain number of brokers per year.  So, if the low exam pass rate is not causing that number to exceed or fall below an acceptable range, there may be less incentive to change the exam.

Put another way, CBP may believe that the current virtual requirement of having to take the license exam at least twice is acceptable.  Who knows, they may even believe that this is a welcome or desirable result.

As they say, it is what it is.

SJC, as noted in this space previously, believes there are significant benefits to taking the exam a second, third or even more times.  None of these benefits necessarily outweighs the time, energy or psychological burden that accompany multiple attempts.  But, at least one thing should be absolutely clear: no one should give up on passing the exam after one attempt or two.  Because of the virtual requirement of taking the exam more than once, not doing so would, in essence, be the same as not following standard practice.

Above all, remember that you (and only you) need to come up with the substance of the arguments that you submit in your appeal.  A quick look at the procedures for submitting an appeal confirms this.  There is a clear prohibition against having someone else write your arguments.  If you think about it, this rule, while requiring more work on your part, does mesh with the overall purpose of the exam, which is to test your knowledge of and competence in CBP regulations.  You could even view it as a “take-home” part of the exam.

Once you come up with some arguments concerning a sufficient number of the questions, present them in a way that is most persuasive.  Here are some tips:

1. EXACTLY follow the formatting requirements issued by CBP.  If they say to use purple paper (they don’t), use purple paper.  If they say to use separate pages for separate questions (they do), use separate pages for separate questions.

2. Be succinct.  State your arguments in short paragraphs no more than 3-4 sentences in length.  Almost every official argument starts with the request for relief, or in this case, credit.  So, at the beginning of an argument about a particular question, ask for what you want as in “I should receive credit for Question __ because” and then state your reasons.

3. Be respectful.  If this is your 5th exam and 3rd appeal, no one will blame you if you’re a little demoralized.  CBP probably would be sympathetic, especially if you had devoted a significant time in studying.  But, allowing your emotions to get intertwined with the appeal is not recommended because they are a distraction from what may be very reasonable arguments.  Would you want CBP to grant appeals based on how loudly someone complained? Overall fairness would suggest that they must base their decisions on whether the appeals demonstrate that an alternative answer reasonably exists.

4.  Conclude by repeating your request.  Again, try to be succinct with your arguments–usually one page for each question should suffice.  In the last sentence or paragraph, summarize your strongest point(s) and say one more time what it is that you want,  as in: “Because of the reasons stated, I should receive credit for Answer __”.

These are just some basic suggestions for writing your appeal.  Ask around–most likely there are others who have submitted successful appeals that might be able to give you some additional pointers.

As noted in an earlier post, this exam had a different character from last year’s exams, and one senses that CBP may be in a transition mode when it comes to its exam construction.  With the last four exams at or below approximately 10% for the national pass rate, CBP may be seeking greater control over the number of new licensed customs brokers, perhaps using the exam more robustly to apply a more rigorous filter for new members to the broker “community”.

If that is the case, exam candidates need to step up their efforts, and they must be prepared to take the exam more than once.  CBP has not publicly released what the passing rate for first-time takers was for the April or earlier exams.  Based on anecdotal evidence, SJC believes the first-time pass rate is at least half the overall rate if not lower.  If accurate, this would mean that only 1 in 20 examinees passed the April exam as a first-timer.  That’s tougher than getting into Stanford or Berkeley.

A few relatively easy-to-agree on items come to mind:

1) Knowledge and understanding of the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) and the Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation

2) Ability to navigate the organizational structure, symbols and abbreviations, and different parts of the HTS

3) Ability to read, understand and apply text of legally binding provisions found in the HTS Chapter & Section notes and General Notes

4) Ability to use publicly available references to add perspective and insight into a classification analysis so as to improve or confirm accuracy

Beyond these basic elements, “competence” in Classification may also include knowledge of and ability to apply HTS provisions concerning: FTA specific rules of origin (aka “tariff shifts”), statistical reporting requirements concerning the type and format of data required for import transactions, and non-standard duty rates for special classes of merchandise or import circumstances.

Of course, one could add even more elements, especially if the standard were applied to specific sub-topics in classification such as Textiles & Apparel or Computers & Electronics. But, the above is a lot to put under the belt, even for someone who is experienced in classifying one or two product areas. This is why SJC focuses on Classification Competence in its “Early Start” prep class.

The exam, it turns out, differed from the October 2009 CBE in that it contained far fewer repeat questions, although it did contain some.  But, it also differed from the April 2009 CBE by its inclusion of several tricky questions that required longer and more complex analysis.  The ability to authorize subagents through use of a power of attorney, for example, was a topic of more than one question, one that the most seasoned experts on the CBP regulations would find challenging even in a non-test environment.

For those trying to overcome the CBE to obtain their license, these type of questions and the overall level of impenetrability of the exam are no doubt frustrating and demoralizing, especially after having spent countless hours amassing a base of knowledge and understanding that one might reasonably hope to be sufficient to pass an exam on U.S. customs regulations.  Does it really matter if a broker knows that a power of attorney issued by a “resident principal” cannot authorize an agent to issue a subagent a separate power of attorney, unless that primary agent is a licensed customs broker?  Maybe, but what about all of the other basics of broker compliance?

You have to know those, too, would be the likely response.  It may well be that to navigate the exam process successfully you must know how to deal with complex and sometimes convoluted questions on relatively unfamiliar parts of the regulations.  Unfortunately, that does not mean you can skip the fundamentals.   Imagine trying to answer the power of attorney questions on subagency without knowing, for example, what a power of attorney is and does in the context of U.S. customs transactions.

So, the exam is, as they say, what it is.  There will always be a weird question or two (or three or four) or a section or two that seems to never end.  The only thing predictable about it is that it is unpredictable.  For that reason alone, solid preparation is an absolutely vital necessity.   You do have to go through the basics and establish a sure footing in order to respond effectively to the odd scenario or unfamiliar phrase on the exam.  Without that groundwork, the questions will seem not only somewhat puzzling, but totally unapproachable.

Of course this is a critical document for those planning to take the April exam since it lists the texts from which the exam will be created.  CBP always makes sure to state that answers to exam questions may not necessarily be found in these texts, but in general, it rarely goes beyond their parameters.  Hence, the Notice more or less puts a circle around the material you will need to study for the exam.

Two things are worth noting about the Notice for April: 1) the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS or HTSUS) version listed requires “supplements” and 2) the anti-dumping & countervailing duty (ADD & CVD) regulations are NOT listed as required material.

With respect to 1), the Notice indicates that the version of the HTSUS to be used for the April exam will be the 2009 HTSUS with supplements.  As most in the industry know, “supplements” for the HTSUS are the packets that come in the mail (if you have a subscription) and have blue-edges and blue-ink typography.  You must insert these blue-page supplemental pages into your original 2009 HTSUS and take out any existing pages that have been “replaced” by a supplemental page.  For 2009, this is  A LOT of pages, so if you haven’t done it, better get started!

As for the absence of the ADD & CVD regulations which are generally found in 19 CFR 351, let’s just be thankful they aren’t listed in the Notice.  They were last year, and that meant examinees not only had to buy another whole book, they also had to try to digest regulations that are not even administered by the CBP.  (They are U.S. Commerce Department regulations.)

For more on how to organize your materials to prepare and to take the exam, you can click here.

Usually this happens not because the exam candidate is somehow incapable; rather, the material covered on the exam is so vast that it can take up to a year or more to go over it and understand it at the level and in the amount necessary to be in a position to pass.   Today’s busy lifestyles and rigorous work schedules only add to this challenge by limiting the amount of time available to study.

SJC believes that that not only is it normal to take the exam more than once, it is commendable.  Beyond the eventual pass and license you receive, you will likely experience the following benefits:

1. Self-satisfaction and admiration of others for not giving up and finishing what you started
2. Deeper understanding of the customs regulations than those who studied only a few months
3. Wider and stronger network of industry colleagues with whom you journey together on this path

Because re-taking the exam is therefore arguably as worthwhile as passing on the first attempt, SJC is offering a “multi-time discount” of 33% on its prep course fee to exam candidates who have taken the exam two or more times and wish to take it again on the next exam date.    Also, if you have paid once for SJC’s course, you will never have to pay again to attend in the future, should you wish to re-take the exam.

Every year an average of approximately 85% of all exam takers do not pass and those 15% or so who do pass consist substantially of multiple-time takers.    Congratulations to those who pass right away.  Multiple congratulations to those who pass on their second, third, fourth, etc. attempt.

As noted  in my previous entry, the October 2009 exam contained an unprecedented number of questions that were nearly verbatim repeated from earlier exams–79 out of 80 in fact.  Makes the low pass rate seemingly surprising, this repeat ratio, does it not? Yes, even I was surprised even though I had never expected the rate to be as high as others had anticipated.  My thought was that the rate might reach the 20% level, not the 50% that some believed to be a possibility.  But 6.9%?!  What the . . .

As it turns out, we need not worry about a national epidemic of poor exam performance or even, poor preparation.  As it turns out, the national pass rate was, more or less, statistically predictable.  This is because–and here, we should be less surprised–the vast majority of the repeated questions on the exam originated from exams with very low pass rates.  According to one calculation, 60 of the 79 questions originated from exams that, cumulatively, had an average pass rate of 6.5%.  Even a casual review of those 60 questions, moreover, indicates that they, on average, were of the kind that caused the low pass rates for those earlier exams.  In other words, they weren’t the puff balls.

So, maybe you were lucky enough to have come across some of these questions during your honest preparation for the exam.  Maybe you even went over them with others or in a prep class.  Heck, maybe you even happened to bring them to the exam in case the complicated issues they raised came up again.   But, 60 of them?  No, as it turns out, those earlier pass rates were accurate: only a handful of folks could handle so many difficult questions.  Their large number overwhelmed any advantage that might have been gained from their familiar quality.

Which brings us to the question posed in the title of this entry, a question fraught with frustration of many of those 1115 folks who confronted this latest exam in good faith and, even, with hours of sincere preparation.  The question begs another question: whether to continue to study in good faith or to take a chance that CBP will again recycle previous questions to this large degree.  If the latter, then a reasonable course of action would be to study, organize and yes, even memorize questions according to topics.   But, that is a fairly risky approach.  CBP need only revert to their usual approach of creating new questions, leaving you, the question indexer, with little to rely on.

No, it appears that the best course continues to be one of good faith, albeit really good faith.   No doubt among the 85 or so successful candidates in October were some first-time exam takers, even though the majority were likely repeat takers who had a better “database” to work from, as far as previous question experience.  One can only guess that those first-time passers had studied and prepared so effectively that not even 60 of the hardest questions ever written could trip them up.  They may not have seen the questions before, but they could still answer them, based on their understanding of the issues and problems they posed.  So, their breadth and depth of knowledge, earned only through enormous preparation (how else?), won the day.

And that’s where we go . . . until, at least,  something else develops in the exam saga.

So what?  The exam was still difficult, right?  Yes, the exam was still difficult, even for those who had prepared by reviewing previous exams and, more important, for those who remembered the questions from those exams.   Take a look at the following question, which appeared on the exam last week and also on the October 2005 CBE:

20.   What QUANTITY should be reported on the CBP Form 7501 for a shipment of 50% liquid caustic soda classified in 2815.12.0000 and weighing 8,836,165 pounds (4,008.022 metric tons) liquid and 4,442,823 pounds (2,015.233 metric tons) dry?

A.           2,015,233 kg/4,008,022 kg

B.            4,008,022 t/2,015,233 t

C.            4,000,000 kg/2,015,233 kg

D.            4,008,022 kg/2,015,233 kg

E.            8,836,165 lbs/4,442,823 lbs

Even if you remembered the question, how could you be certain that there wasn’t a change in any of the numbers?  A change of order in the question choices?  CBP has been notorious for trying to trick examinees with questions that are seemingly easy only to turn out to be traps for the unwary.  So, are you really SURE this isn’t a trick? (By the way, CBP did indeed change the answer order from the original, but not much else.)

Unfortunately, a previously given question, even if verbatim, is not that much easier than a new question that poses the issue with a different scenario, and CBP probably knows that.  Some predict that the pass rate for the October 2009 exam will be unusually high; I am not among them. Sure, there may be a small segment with good memories who might pass because of the “regurgitated” nature of this latest CBE, but among those who prepared sincerely and carefully, there will be those who will fail (or do worse than expected) precisely because of the familiarity.

Our only recourse for the continued unpredictability of CBP’s exam content is to be prepared for anything.