LinkedInFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeEmailPhone

CFIUS is Looking to Fast Track Some Transactions… Could this Program Benefit You? 

On February 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury formally issued a Request for Information (RFI) that outlines how a “Known Investor Program” could streamline aspects of CFIUS review for trusted, lower‑risk repeat investors while maintaining rigorous national‑security analysis. The RFI was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2026, and opened for public comment through March 18, 2026. This RFI follows Treasury’s May 8, 2025 announcement of a fast‑track pilot and “Known Investor” portal under CFIUS to collect investor information in advance of a filing—the core mechanism Treasury says will drive efficiency gains. In parallel, Treasury’s CFIUS overview reiterates the standard timelines, underscoring that any new efficiency program must still fit within the existing statutory framework. 

What is the Fast Track program?  

According to Treasury’s RFI, the KIP is a process by which CFIUS would pre‑collect a standardized set of information from eligible foreign investors (via a questionnaire and certification) before any specific transaction filing, with the goal of more efficient subsequent reviews. Importantly, Treasury stresses that participation does not guarantee a particular outcome and does not alter CFIUS jurisdiction or statutory procedures. 

Who is eligible to participate?  

Treasury’s RFI proposes objective eligibility criteria. Highlights include: 

  • Repeat‑filer threshold: The foreign investor (inclusive of subsidiaries) must have filed ≥3 covered transactions or covered real‑estate transactions with CFIUS in the past 3 years, with at least one concluded via notice […]
By |2026-03-30T10:52:29-04:00March 30, 2026|CFIUS, U.S. Department of Treasury|Comments Off on CFIUS is Looking to Fast Track Some Transactions… Could this Program Benefit You? 
Read More

Non-notified Transactions Raising Red Flags for CFIUS 

Even when a transaction does not trigger a mandatory filing, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) risk does not disappear. While the regime remains technically “voluntary” in many cases, the Treasury’s increasingly active non-notified program means that deals can still be reviewed, and potentially unwound, long after closing. As a result, parties must weigh the benefits of filing against the risk of future scrutiny, particularly in sensitive sectors or with higher-risk investors.  

What counts as “voluntary.”  

Given the breadth of CFIUS’ jurisdiction to review transactions between US and non-US entities where the latter’s investment implicates U.S. national security, if a deal is not a “covered transaction” (no foreign‑government substantial interest in a TID U.S. business; no critical technology), the filing decision is voluntary, but not risk‑free. CFIUS runs a vigorous non‑notified program that screens thousands of transactions annually and can request (or require) a filing post‑closing. 

Why file voluntarily anyway?

A voluntary filing can deliver “safe harbor” (limiting CFIUS’s ability to initiate a review of the transaction in the future), reduce the risk of a disruptive post‑closing inquiry, and preserve options if a customer or government counterparties expect CFIUS clearance in sensitive sectors (e.g., defense supply chain, advanced computing and AI, biosecurity, or large‑scale personal‑data platforms). 

A practical playbook to reduce CFIUS risk and avoid being flagged 

1) Review the risks of your investor profile and structure. 

Confirm “excepted investor/state” status where applicable, and consider governance that […]

By |2026-03-30T10:49:16-04:00March 30, 2026|CFIUS, U.S. Department of Treasury|Comments Off on Non-notified Transactions Raising Red Flags for CFIUS 
Read More

Mandatory vs. Voluntary CFIUS Filings: Triggers, Timing, and How to Report a Mandatory Transaction 

The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) created limited mandatory filing requirements—departing from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)’s historically voluntary regime—and Treasury has continued to sharpen enforcement tools and penalties. Understanding when a filing is compulsory (and how to do it) reduces execution risk and avoids costly post‑closing surprises.  

When a CFIUS filing is mandatory 

Two categories trigger a mandatory submission (via declaration, with the option to file a full notice instead): 

  • Foreign government “substantial interest” in a TID U.S. business. If (i) a foreign government holds a 49%+ voting interest in the foreign acquirer, and (ii) that acquirer obtains a 25%+ voting interest (“substantial interest”) in a TID U.S. business (one involving critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data), a filing is mandatory. 
  • Critical technology + export authorization nexus. A filing is mandatory if the U.S. target produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops a critical technology and a U.S. regulatory authorization (e.g., export license) would be required to transfer that technology to any relevant party to the transaction (including certain upstream owners).  

Timing rule. For a mandatory filing, the parties must submit at least 30 days before closing. The date of closing or “completion date” is the earliest date upon which the foreign person acquired any of the equity interest. Therefore, if Company A acquired […]

By |2026-03-30T10:37:24-04:00March 30, 2026|CFIUS, U.S. Department of Treasury|Comments Off on Mandatory vs. Voluntary CFIUS Filings: Triggers, Timing, and How to Report a Mandatory Transaction 
Read More

Even AI Needs a License – Know When Automation Unlawfully Crosses Into “Customs Business” 

In January of this year, CBP quietly released a ruling (January 16, 2026/CEE.HQ H350722) that demarcates clear boundaries of where AI is permitted to facilitate Customs filings and where such artificial tools cross the “human-brokers-only” line.  

Case Background 

A foreign “Unlicensed Company” was operating an online platform and marketing to importers without seeking approval or a license from CBP. This platform offered four key services: 1) connecting importers to brokers, 2) utilizing an optical character recognition (OCR) tool to cull entry data from shipping documents, 3) generating HTSUS subheading suggestions for specific articles, and 4) submitting CBP Form 5106 on behalf of new importers. The question before CBP was whether the company was conducting customs business without a license. 

CBP Ruling 

In its ruling, CBP stated that the definition of “customs business” is quite broad. To that end, developers could accidentally create agentic parameters that trespass the bounds of what it means to engage in “customs business.” Here are some key takeaways from the ruling: 

  1. “CBP cautioned that an unlicensed entity may not serve as an intermediary between a broker and importer if the unlicensed entity is actively participating ‘in decisions and activities relating to the preparation or filing of Customs documents for imported merchandise, or relating to any other action amounting to customs business.’” However, since the “Unlicensed Company was not actively participating in deciding what information must […]
By |2026-03-30T10:33:53-04:00March 30, 2026|Import, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on Even AI Needs a License – Know When Automation Unlawfully Crosses Into “Customs Business” 
Read More

What Happened This Month in International Trade (March 2026)

Another busy month in customs & international trade news: 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

  • On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton issued a strong and detailed order requiring the refunds of IEEPA Tariffs. We expect the government to appeal this order. Judge Eaton issued subsequent orders: (i) suspending the previous order to allow CBP time to implement their refund process; (ii) amending the previous order to include Brazil and India IEEPA tariffs.  
  • New York Attorney General Letitia James and prosecutors from 23 other states filed a lawsuit in the CIT to block President Trump’s global tariff regime under Section 122 and order refunds to states.  

Administration   

  • President Trump issued a 60-day waiver to the Jones Act, temporarily allowing foreign-flagged ships carrying oil and gas to travel between US ports. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)    

  • CBP ruled that the submission of a CBP Form 5106 on an importer’s behalf constitutes “customs business” and requires a broker license.  
  • CBP’s Trade and Cargo Security Summit has been rescheduled to Sept. 8-10, from its original dates in April. CBP said this is due to the DHS lapse in appropriations. 

Congress   

By |2026-03-27T12:35:19-04:00March 27, 2026|news, Snapshot|Comments Off on What Happened This Month in International Trade (March 2026)
Read More

Breaking Trade News: Jones Act Waiver, CBP 5106 Ruling, OFAC Sanctions

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:

Administration    

  • President Trump issued a 60-day waiver to the Jones Act, temporarily allowing foreign-flagged ships carrying oil and gas to travel between US ports. 
  • The text of the Ecuador-U.S. trade agreement was released and includes a long list of products that will receive most-favored nation tariff rate treatment in the U.S. Roughly 50% of Ecuador’s exports will see MFN treatment as a result of the deal.  

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)    

  • CBP ruled that the submission of a CBP Form 5106 on an importer’s behalf constitutes “customs business” and requires a broker license. 
  • CBP seized 35 e-bikes from China that violated federal motor vehicle safety standards. 
  • Ahead of Passover and Easter season, CBP issued a reminder to check the latest agricultural import requirements for those traveling with fresh flowers, plants, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and decorated eggs. 
  • CBP officers at the Port of Rochester and Port of Buffalo seized a variety of designer items bearing counterfeit trademarks. Had these designer items been genuine, the total manufacturer-suggested retail price (MSRP) value would […]
By |2026-03-20T12:29:23-04:00March 20, 2026|news, Snapshot|Comments Off on Breaking Trade News: Jones Act Waiver, CBP 5106 Ruling, OFAC Sanctions
Read More

Avoid Penalties, Build Confidence: Importers Thrive in CBP’s Recordkeeping Compliance Program

Authors: 
Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law
Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

What Is the Recordkeeping Compliance Program?

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requires importers to maintain and produce specific records related to their entries. Under 19 C.F.R. § 163.12, CBP offers a Recordkeeping Compliance Program—a voluntary and free certification program designed to help importers strengthen their internal controls, improve record management, and demonstrate a proactive commitment to compliance. 

At its core, the program enables importers to collaborate with CBP to ensure they understand their obligations under the Customs Modernization Act (Mod Act) and are equipped to meet them. Certification signals that an importer has established reliable procedures for maintaining, retrieving, and producing required entry records. 

What Are the Benefits of the Program?

Participating in the Recordkeeping Compliance Program offers several meaningful advantages:  

  • Reduced Exposure to Penalties 

Certified importers may receive mitigation benefits if they inadvertently fail to produce certain records. CBP recognizes that certified companies have invested in compliance infrastructure and may treat isolated lapses more leniently. 

  • Stronger Relationship With CBP 

Certification demonstrates good faith and transparency. Importers who demonstrate a serious commitment to compliance often experience smoother interactions with CBP, including during audits, inquiries, and enforcement actions. 

  • Improved Internal Controls 

The certification process requires importers to evaluate and document […]

By |2026-03-19T09:11:32-04:00March 19, 2026|U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on Avoid Penalties, Build Confidence: Importers Thrive in CBP’s Recordkeeping Compliance Program
Read More

Section 301 Investigation into Forced Labor Practices — US Allies and FTA Partners Under Scrutiny

On March 12, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published its Initiation of Section 301 Investigations into the practices of various economies, including that of US allies and long-standing trade partners, for their alleged failure to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor.  

What Can the USTR Do? 

Section 301, formally known as Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 or “Relief from Unfair Trade Practices,” authorizes the USTR to investigate acts, policies, or practices that it considers unreasonable, discriminatory, or burdensome to US commerce. The USTR goes on to say that practices which permit forced or compulsory labor meet the criteria of unreasonable, unfair, and inequitable. If the USTR concludes that an act is “unjustifiable” and “burdens or restricts” US commerce, action is mandatory. On the other hand, if the USTR determines that such act is only “unreasonable or discriminatory” and “burdens or restricts” US commerce, action is discretionary. In either case, when the USTR aims to remedy a foreign trade practice, the agency can (1) impose tariffs or other import restrictions, (2) withdraw or suspend trade agreement concessions, or (3) enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to either cease the conduct in question or compensate the US. Additionally, the statute requires that when USTR’s action is mandatory, the agency’s action should “affect goods or services of the foreign country in an amount that is equivalent in value to the burden or restriction […]

By |2026-03-19T08:58:32-04:00March 19, 2026|Forced Labor|Comments Off on Section 301 Investigation into Forced Labor Practices — US Allies and FTA Partners Under Scrutiny
Read More

You’ve Been Asked to Boycott – What to Know Before You Self‑Disclose

Companies engaged in international trade occasionally encounter requests that raise red flags under the U.S. anti‑boycott regulations. Whether the request appears in a tender document, a purchase order, a letter of credit, or a casual email, the moment you spot boycott‑related language, the clock starts ticking. One of the most powerful tools available to companies is the Voluntary Self‑Disclosure (VSD) process under 15 C.F.R. § 764.8, administered by the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC). Used correctly, a VSD can dramatically mitigate penalties and demonstrate a strong compliance posture. 

Timing, content, and execution matter. Here’s what you need to know before you self‑disclose. 

Timing 

A VSD must be submitted before the government learns of the same potential violation through other channels: 

  • Before you file a mandatory report for the same boycott request. 
  • Before you ask OAC for advice about the same conduct.  
  • Important: Requests for advice are not VSDs and do not stop the clock. 

If you’ve already triggered another form of disclosure or inquiry, you may lose eligibility for the benefits of a VSD. 

A VSD will not be accepted if the individual making the disclosure did so without the full knowledge and authorization of the firm’s senior management or a […]

By |2026-03-19T08:52:53-04:00March 19, 2026|U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|Comments Off on You’ve Been Asked to Boycott – What to Know Before You Self‑Disclose
Read More
Go to Top