Importers routinely believe that because their ocean freight forwarder "filed everything", both advance filings are handled. They are separate obligations, they sit with different parties, and satisfying one does nothing for the other. Here they are side by side.
| AMS | ISF | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Cargo manifest (electronic equivalent of CBP Form 1302) transmitted to CBP | Importer Security Filing, known as 10+2 |
| Legal basis | 19 CFR 4.7(b)(2) | 19 CFR Part 149 |
| Who files | Carrier for the master bill; an FMC-licensed or registered NVOCC with an international carrier bond for the house bill | ISF Importer (normally the importer of record) or its authorized agent, such as a licensed customs broker |
| Deadline | 24 hours before the cargo is laden aboard the vessel at the foreign port | Eight elements 24 hours before lading; container stuffing location and consolidator no later than 24 hours before arrival at a U.S. port |
| Focus | Transport data: parties, ports, containers, cargo description | Commercial and origin data: manufacturer, seller, buyer, ship-to party, stuffing location |
| Failure mode | Do-not-load message, manifest hold, cargo not released | Liquidated damages, hold, examination |
| Identifier | SCAC of the filing party | Importer of record number (IRS, EIN, SSN or CBP-assigned number) |
| Bond | International carrier bond for NVOCCs (19 CFR 113.64) | Basic importation and entry bond, or an ISF bond (19 CFR 149.5) |
Both are advance filings, and both use vocabulary the freight glossary defines term by term. Both are due before the cargo is loaded. Both are transmitted by the same forwarder on the same day when the forwarder controls the freight, so from the shipper's chair they look like one action. The distinction becomes visible only when something is wrong, because the fix depends on who owns the filing.
A manifest problem is corrected by the carrier or NVOCC that filed the bill. An ISF problem is corrected by the importer or its broker. If nobody is clear which filing is at fault, the container sits while both parties investigate.
The commodity description appears on both, and it must be consistent. The consignee and shipper details appear on both. The manufacturer, the seller, the ship-to party and the container stuffing location appear only on the ISF. The vessel stow plan (19 CFR 4.7c) and container status messages (19 CFR 4.7d) are carrier filings that sit beside the AMS cargo declaration and never form part of the ISF.
Where the descriptions diverge, CBP notices. Two documents describing the same container differently is exactly the pattern targeting systems look for.
The details of each are in AMS filing for ocean freight and ISF filing requirements.
19 CFR 149.3(a) lists ten importer data elements, each reported at the six-digit HTSUS level on the lowest bill of lading (the house bill when one exists):
The manufacturer, country of origin and HTSUS number must be linked to one another at the line-item level. The AMS cargo declaration carries none of these linked commercial fields, which is why an AMS filing cannot stand in for an ISF.
If you buy on FOB and control the main leg, your forwarder files the house bill in AMS and transmits your ISF too, using data you supply. If you buy on CIF and the supplier's forwarder controls origin, that forwarder files AMS, and your ISF still has to be filed by you or your broker. That second case is where filings get missed, because the party with the transport data is not the party with the ISF obligation.
Under 19 CFR 4.7(b)(3), only an NVOCC that is licensed by or registered with the Federal Maritime Commission and holds an international carrier bond can transmit house-bill cargo declarations directly to CBP. A forwarder without that status must give the cargo declaration data to the vessel carrier, which presents it to CBP. Ask your provider which of the two applies before you rely on its AMS filing.
Agree at the purchase order stage who transmits what, and write the stuffing location and manufacturer details into your supplier onboarding.
The ISF has its own change rules in 19 CFR 149.2. The filer must update the ISF whenever information changes or more accurate information becomes available before the goods enter the limits of a U.S. port. If the goods are no longer intended for import, the filer must withdraw the ISF and transmit the reason.
For the four elements manufacturer (or supplier), ship-to party, country of origin and HTSUS number, the filer can submit an initial response based on the best available data, then update it as soon as more precise data exists and no later than 24 hours before arrival at a U.S. port (19 CFR 149.2(f)). The ISF must be submitted in English through a CBP-approved electronic interchange system.
When the ISF and the entry travel in a single electronic transmission, 19 CFR 149.6 lets the filer enter the importer of record number, consignee number, country of origin and a 10-digit HTSUS number once. Only an importer acting on its own behalf or a licensed customs broker can send that combined transmission.
Bulk cargo that is exempt from the 24-hour cargo declaration under 19 CFR 4.7(b)(2) is also exempt from the ISF (19 CFR 149.4(a)). Break bulk cargo exempt from the 24-hour manifest rule must still have its ISF presented 24 hours before arrival in the United States, and containerized cargo on the same vessel keeps the standard deadline. Foreign cargo remaining on board and shipments moving in-bond for immediate exportation or transportation and exportation file a shorter element set under 19 CFR 149.3(b): booking party, foreign port of unlading, place of delivery, ship-to party and HTSUS number.
Take a container loading at Shanghai for Miami, a lane with an 18-day transit in Interworld Freight's transit data. The cutoffs fall in this order:
Both deadlines are measured against the vessel, not against the booking date. A voyage shorter than 24 hours to the nearest U.S. port moves the second deadline to the moment of lading at the foreign port (19 CFR 149.2(b)(3)).
A missing ISF carries liquidated damages and an examination. A rejected AMS description carries a do-not-load message and a missed sailing. Both generate demurrage and detention charges while the container waits, and both leave a compliance record that raises the examination rate on future shipments.
The ISF bond is the financial backstop. 19 CFR 149.5(b) requires the ISF Importer to hold a basic importation and entry bond or an ISF bond; if it has neither, the agent filing for it can post the agent's bond. The mechanics are covered in single versus continuous customs bonds.
No. AMS is the transport manifest filed by the carrier or NVOCC under 19 CFR 4.7. ISF is the importer's security filing under 19 CFR Part 149. They carry different data and are transmitted separately.
No. They go to CBP as separate transmissions, even when the same company prepares both. Only the ISF and the entry can share a single transmission, under 19 CFR 149.6.
The ISF Importer, normally the importer of record, regardless of who transmits it. An authorized agent files on the importer's behalf under a power of attorney, but the obligation stays with the importer.
No. The AMS manifest requirement discussed here applies to inbound ocean cargo. Exports have their own electronic export information requirements.
Confirm in writing who transmits the ISF. Control of the freight does not transfer the importer's filing obligation, and the supplier's forwarder has no access to your importer of record number unless you provide it.
Any time the data changes before the goods enter the limits of a U.S. port. For manufacturer, ship-to party, country of origin and HTSUS number, the final update is due no later than 24 hours before arrival at a U.S. port.
No. Bulk cargo exempt from the 24-hour cargo declaration is also exempt from the ISF under 19 CFR 149.4(a). Containerized cargo is not exempt.
Want both filings coordinated by one team? Talk to us about how we run the data flow.