![ONLINE SHOPPING SHEIN AMAZON EBAY iStock-Robert Way-1499148111.jpg A HAND HOVERS OVER A SMARTPHONE SCREEN BEARING LOGOS OF ONLINE SHOPPING SERVICES, INCLUDING SHEIN, AMAZON AND EBAY.](https://www.supplychainbrain.com/ext/resources/2024/04/29/ONLINE-SHOPPING-SHEIN-AMAZON-EBAY-iStock-Robert-Way-1499148111.jpg?height=100&t=1714396546&width=150)
Visit Our Sponsors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspecting 100 percent of all ocean cargo for "weapons of mass destruction" or other contraband sounds reasonable, unless you've worked in manufacturing and understand that the need for inspections is a symptom of poorly designed and controlled processes.
The call to inspect all inbound ocean containers began shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the requirement was included in the 9/11 Act passed by Congress in 2007. The bill sets a deadline of July 1, 2012 for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement 100-percent inspection of all inbound cargo containers. Now U.S. Government Accountability Office report ("Homeland Security: DHS's Progress and Challenges in Key Areas of Maritime, Aviation, and Cybersecurity") says it is highly unlikely that CPB will meet the July 2012 deadline.
Is-100 percent inspection necessary? Asked differently: Should the focus be on inspections or on developing more transparent and better designed and controlled global supply chain processes? I vote for the latter.
Read Full Article
RELATED CONTENT
RELATED VIDEOS
Timely, incisive articles delivered directly to your inbox.