What is the Automated Manifest System (AMS)?

The Automated Manifest System (AMS) is CBP’s electronic manifest platform used by ocean carriers, NVOCCs, and other parties to transmit cargo, vessel, and container information before a U.S.-bound vessel arrives. AMS messages cover details such as container numbers, B/L information, and container status messages for targeting and release decisions.

How is AMS different from ISF 10+2?

AMS is a carrier- and NVOCC-side manifest filing, while ISF 10+2 is an importer-side security filing. AMS focuses on vessel, voyage, and manifest information submitted by the carrier or NVOCC, whereas ISF 10+2 covers ten importer data elements and two carrier elements. CBP expects AMS data to align with ISF and B/L records for each shipment.

How does AMS relate to the Bill of Lading and container status messages?

AMS records use the same B/L numbers, container numbers, and routing details that appear on the Master and House Bills of Lading. Container Status Messages (CSM) are transmitted through AMS to track key milestones such as loading, departure, arrival, and discharge. CBP uses these AMS-linked events together with ISF and entry data to target inspections and control port release.

What happens if AMS data is late or inconsistent?

Late or inconsistent AMS data can cause CBP to delay release, trigger additional document checks, or increase exam probability. If AMS entries do not match ISF, B/L, or entry details, shipments risk Do Not Load instructions, manifest corrections, and higher scrutiny on a carrier or NVOCC’s entire service string.

Automated Manifest System (AMS) — Definition, Carrier Rules & 2025 US Ocean/Air Manifest Compliance Updated Dec 2025

Q: Who is responsible for AMS filing?

AMS is typically filed by the ocean carrier or an NVOCC that issues the Master or House Bill of Lading. In some structures, a freight forwarder acting as NVOCC will send AMS messages on its own SCAC. Importers rarely file AMS directly, but their shipments depend on accurate AMS data to avoid misrouting, holds, and DNL flags.

Source: U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), air and ocean carrier manifest procedures, World Customs Organization (WCO) data model guidance, and WinsBS Research (2025). For educational reference only — not legal advice.

What Is Automated Manifest System (AMS)?

View Industry Definition & Context

Automated Manifest System (AMS) is a CBP electronic manifest platform used by ocean carriers, NVOCCs, airlines, rail carriers, and their agents to transmit detailed cargo and conveyance information for shipments moving into, out of, or through the U.S.

In practice, “AMS filing” usually refers to the carrier-side manifest submission that accompanies or precedes documents like the Bill of Lading (B/L) or Air Waybill (AWB). For e-commerce importers, AMS is the data backbone that CBP uses alongside ISF 10+2 and customs entry filings to decide which containers or ULDs get routed to exams, holds, or “green lane” release.

Ocean AMS: Transmits container numbers, B/L details, shipper/consignee data, commodity descriptions, piece count, weight, and routing information for FCL and LCL shipments.
Air AMS: Often integrated with CBP’s air cargo manifest systems and airline messaging, reporting MAWB/HAWB data, flight numbers, and airport routing.
Data feeds to CBP risk engines: AMS data is used together with ISF, ACE entry, and targeting rules to flag high-risk cargo for inspection or “Do Not Load” (DNL) instructions.

From an importer’s perspective, AMS is not a form you file directly, but a critical “carrier-side” layer that must stay aligned with your ISF and entry data. When AMS data is inconsistent or incomplete, CBP can hold containers even when ISF and entry are technically on file.

“Think of AMS as CBP’s ‘live manifest feed’ from carriers. If AMS data disagrees with ISF or customs entry — on B/L, container, parties, or commodity — the container becomes interesting to CBP. Most brands don’t see AMS messages directly, which is exactly why the risk is underestimated.”
— WinsBS Research, US Manifest & Targeting Benchmarks 2025

AMS vs ISF, B/L, ACE Entry & Arrival Notice

Process / System	Main Purpose	How It Relates to AMS
AMS Manifest Filing	Carrier or NVOCC electronic manifest to CBP describing cargo, containers, and routing.	AMS is the carrier-side feed. CBP uses it for admissibility checks and to compare against ISF, customs entry, and security programs.
ISF 10+2	Importer security filing 24+ hours before vessel loading for U.S.-bound ocean shipments.	ISF is the importer-side dataset. CBP expects ISF parties, HTS, and origin to align with AMS and B/L information.
Bill of Lading (B/L)	Contract of carriage and commercial record of shipper, consignee, origin/destination, and cargo.	AMS pulls many of its core fields from the B/L. Re-issued or split B/Ls without AMS updates frequently cause manifest holds.
Air Waybill (AWB)	Air cargo transport document for airline and air freight shipments.	Air AMS references MAWB/HAWB numbers and parties. AWB-level errors often result in “no manifest match” issues with CBP.
ACE Customs Entry	Importer/broker filing of CBP Form 3461/7501 for release and duty assessment.	Entry (value, HTS, origin, importer) must be consistent with AMS. Discrepancies may trigger document requests or holds.
Arrival Notice	Carrier/forwarder notice of cargo arrival and availability.	Arrival notices rely on AMS arrival events. Incorrect AMS blocks timely availability updates.
Delivery Order (DO)	Terminal/depot release authorization.	DO cannot proceed during AMS-related manifest holds. AMS errors often delay DO issuance.

AMS, ISF, and entry should be three synchronized views of the same shipment, using shared identifiers and master data.

How AMS Filing Works in a Typical China → US FCL Scenario

Step	Key Action	AMS-Related Notes
1. Booking & B/L Instructions	Shipper/forwarder books space and submits Shipper’s Instructions (SI).	AMS mirrors SI fields (shipper, consignee, cargo description). Poor SI → poor AMS.
2. Container Stuffing & Documentation	Goods stuffed; commercial docs finalized.	Commodity descriptions must be detailed, realistic, and compliant, not “general merchandise.”
3. ISF 10+2 Filing	Importer/broker files ISF.	ISF party/HTS/origin should align with AMS & B/L early.
4. AMS Manifest Submission	Carrier/NVOCC files AMS.	Includes container numbers, B/L details, parties, commodity, weight, and routing. Rejections → delays.
5. Transit, CSM & Updates	Carrier sends CSM and stow-plan updates.	Route changes must be updated in AMS to avoid holds.
6. Arrival, Exams & Release	CBP compares AMS, ISF, entry.	Manifest holds often trace back to AMS discrepancies.

AMS status should be visible inside OMS and WMS dashboards, not hidden in carrier email threads.

Regional Patterns & AMS Practices (2025)

View Trade Lane AMS Characteristics

Region / Scenario	Key Actors	AMS Considerations
China → US (FCL)	VOCCs, NVOCCs, China forwarders	High-volume e-commerce lanes need accurate commodity descriptions. Clear division of AMS responsibility is required. Clean SI templates correlate with fewer manifest holds.
China → US (LCL / CFS)	Consolidators, CFS, co-loaders	HBL → MBL mapping must be clean. Co-loader layers increase mismatch risk. Incorrect CFS updates frequently trigger “no manifest match.”
Air Freight to US Hubs	Airlines, handlers, air forwarders	AWB/MAWB/HAWB must align with AMS. Flight swaps require prompt AMS amendments. Vague e-commerce descriptions raise targeting risk.
Transshipment via Hubs	Hub carriers, terminals	Port changes require AMS route updates. Mismatched hub manifests weaken CBP confidence. Origin discrepancies increase UFLPA-related scrutiny.
Port → FBA / 3PL	3PLs, FBA, DTC networks	AMS holds delay DO and warehouse appointments. AMS error cost must reflect in landed-cost models. Clean AMS history supports tighter stock planning.

Expert Insight — Why AMS Data Quality Controls Port Behavior

View Analyst Commentary

Maxwell Anderson, Editor-in-Chief & Data Director, WinsBS Research:

1. AMS is the “official story” carriers tell CBP about your cargo.
ISF and entry are what importers say; AMS is what carriers say. When those stories don’t match — on shipper, consignee, B/L, or commodity — CBP flags the load.

2. Commodity descriptions in AMS drive targeting.
Vague descriptions raise exam rates. SKU-informed standards cut unnecessary inspections.

3. LCL and co-loaded freight amplify AMS complexity.
Each extra layer adds mismatch risk across HBL, MBL, ISF, and AMS.

4. AMS, ISF, and entry should be one data model.
Shared identifiers and shared validation rules reduce dwell time and demurrage.

5. AMS KPIs belong in operational dashboards.
Manifest-hold rate, AMS correction cycles, and exam correlations predict import reliability.

— WinsBS Research, Automated Manifest System & Port Dwell Time Benchmark 2025

Risk Radar — AMS Filing Risk Scenarios (2025)

View Critical Risk Scenarios

Automated Manifest System (AMS) FAQ — Common Questions

Who is responsible for AMS filing?

AMS is filed by carriers, NVOCCs, airlines, or their authorized agents. Importers do not file AMS directly, but CBP compares AMS with ISF and customs entry.

Is AMS the same as ISF 10+2?

No. ISF is an importer filing; AMS is a carrier manifest filing. CBP expects them to align but they are submitted by different parties on different timelines.

When is AMS due?

AMS deadlines vary by mode, but generally must be transmitted before vessel or flight departure from the last foreign port.

Does AMS apply to air freight?

Yes. Airlines transmit manifests integrated with AMS, though express courier parcels follow separate small-package rules.

What happens with incorrect AMS?

Manifest holds, NII scans, intensive exams, and penalties may occur. Importers feel the consequences through dwell time, demurrage, and delayed DOs.

How can importers improve AMS quality?

Standardize SI templates, commodity libraries, require AMS identifiers, and track manifest-hold rates in 3PL scorecards.

Turn AMS from a Black Box into a Measurable Port Risk Control

For cross-border e-commerce brands, AMS is often treated as “whatever the carrier files.” But CBP relies heavily on AMS to decide whether your cargo moves freely or sits in hold queues.

WinsBS supports brands by:

Mapping AMS responsibility (carrier / NVOCC / forwarder) into OMS, WMS, and PO workflows.
Building SKU-level commodity libraries for consistent SI + AMS descriptions.
Synchronizing AMS events with ISF, arrival, and DO milestones.
Tracking AMS KPIs — hold rates, correction cycles, exam correlations.
Feeding AMS-driven delays into landed cost analysis.

Get Manifest-Compliant Import Routing with WinsBS →

WinsBS Blog Insights

AMS cargo manifest data flow from carriers to CBP systems — WinsBS visual reference

AMS Manifest Explained: From B/L Data to CBP Targeting

A walkthrough of how carriers build AMS messages and how CBP uses them to drive exams and release decisions.

Read Full Guide →

Chart showing AMS manifest holds vs port dwell time and demurrage — WinsBS visual reference

Manifest Holds, Exams & Demurrage: What AMS Data Tells Us

Analysis connecting AMS quality with manifest holds, dwell time, and demurrage across key lanes.

View Analysis →

Dashboard view combining AMS status, ISF, ETA, and inbound warehouse appointments — WinsBS visual reference

Designing AMS-Aware Import Flows for FBA, FBM & 3PL Networks

How to embed AMS visibility into inbound planning for FBA, FBM, and multi-warehouse 3PL operations.

View Benchmarks →

Content Attribution & License

General definitions and public references are shared under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License.

Analytical insights and commentary labeled “WinsBS Research” are © WinsBS Research (2025) and licensed exclusively to WinsBS Wiki.

Data sources include CBP manifest regulations, DHS cargo security resources, WCO data model, carrier and NVOCC documentation, and WinsBS Research’s AMS dwell-time datasets.

* Information verified as of December 2025. WinsBS Research assumes no liability for regulatory changes after publication.