Cargo drilling: Is it worth the cost?

By James R Giermanski -- Logistics Management, 1/1/1999

Over the last year, the U.S. Customs Service on the southern border has increasingly turned to the controversial practice of drilling motor carrier equipment and cargo to detect drugs and other illegal cargo.

To customs officials, drilling is just one method of detecting drugs and other contraband. To carriers and shippers, it is an act of destruction. That's because drilling as it is practiced on the southern border often results in damaged equipment and cargo.

Drilling usually is done when other detection techniques indicate it is needed. For example, if a range-finding instrument measures a significant difference between the inside and outside dimensions of a trailer, that may indicate the presence of a false wall. To locate suspected drug shipments, customs may drill the trailer. In a number of cases, however, drilling has been used apparently at random, when there was no evidence to suggest the presence of drugs.

Carriers say that drilling not only damages their equipment, but also puts their drivers at risk because it can damage safety equipment. In a recent incident in Laredo involving truckload carrier M.S. Carriers, customs inspectors who were drilling through the bottom of a trailer from the inside pierced an air-brake line. Fortunately, the driver discovered the damage and repairs were made at the site. Inspectors also drill tank trailers, a practice bulk haulers oppose because it can be extremely dangerous.

U.S. customs officials in Laredo say that all trailers drilled by inspectors are repaired with caulking and patched with adhesive-backed aluminum strips. The strips then are covered with bright green "Customs" tape to indicate where the hole was drilled.

Carriers complain that the patching is ineffective and the adhesive strips often fall off, especially in cold weather. Some shippers and carriers, moreover, say that inspectors don't always make those temporary repairs. Tom Wade, president of the Laredo Transportation Association, has photo documentation to support his contention that patching is not routinely done. And because the drilling is done while trailers are in the custody of local border drayage companies, says Wade, "some U.S. motor carriers may not even know their equipment was drilled, since the holes are not marked. This results in potential future damage to cargo in those trailers because of rain and other weather-related elements."

Customs officials in Laredo acknowledge that they do not know the cost to repair drilled trailers that must be borne by industry. They also admit that they do not document drilling activity. "The practice of documenting drilling is not a standard procedure. We do not maintain these kinds of records," they said in a written response to my questions.

According to customs authorities, shippers and carriers that experience damage to cargo and equipment may file a tort claim. That fact apparently is not routinely communicated to potential claimants, however. When asked if instructions were given to drivers of damaged equipment, the customs official responded: "Tort claim forms are available at all facilities. The supervisor on duty usually gets a verbal complaint, which he documents, and provides the complainant with the form."

Although customs officials say that shippers and carriers may recover damages through the tort claim process, experience seems to indicate otherwise. Kris Ikejiri, vice president for administration at CFI, puts it this way: "It is ironic that customs continues to maintain that any damages it causes due to drilling will be compensated if a party files under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). I'd be interested in seeing one FTCA claim that [customs has] paid. CFI has filed several, and all have been denied." One denial letter ended with this recommendation: "If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may file suit in the appropriate United States district court..." When CFI did so, the district court ruled that the FTCA barred suits over claims against the Customs Service!

Shippers should be especially concerned about this legal contradiction, because they may suffer even greater monetary damages than carriers. An example: When customs inspectors recently drilled a master roll of toilet paper, the shipper filed a tort claim for $13,894.91. Given CFI's discovery, there may be little hope of settling that claim either.

Although U.S. shippers and carriers support the Customs Service's drug-interdiction efforts, they are unhappy about the damage being done to equipment and cargo, particularly in cases where they believed drilling was unwarranted. U.S. customs officials in Laredo, at least, remain convinced that drilling is necessary, citing its role in 35 percent of recent drug seizures in commercial cargo on the Southwest border. Regardless of its payoff, drilling clearly is injurious to equipment, cargo, and the U.S. Customs Service itself in the form of damaged relations with its constituents. It may be only a matter of time, moreover, before drilling results in injury to a human life.

Dr. Giermanski is Regents professor at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas. He has frequently written, commented, and testified on issues affecting cross-border trade with Mexico.