LinkedInFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeEmailPhone

Breaking Trade News: CAPE Phase 3 Live, DOJ Trade Fraud Directive, Outbound Investment Penalty

This week’s recap of the latest customs and international trade news:  

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

  • Phase three of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) refund system was deployed by CBP on October 6. Phase 3 covers finally liquidated entries from importers that filed suit at the CIT and for which the Court has ordered reliquidation. 
  • CBP issued a proposed rule that would create a framework for low-value imports after the end of de minimis and formally establishing new informal Entry Type 13 for merchandise entering through the mail. Comments are due December 7. 
  • CBP’s Agriculture and Prepared Products Center of Excellence and Expertise (APP) in Miami uncovered a tariff evasion scheme involving tuna caught by foreign-flagged vessels. The investigation uncovered over $8M in lost revenue and almost $9M in expected penalties.

Department of Justice (DOJ) 

  • On October 1, 2026, DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division issued Directive 26-12, which makes trade fraud a corporate enforcement priority and lists ten factors prosecutors must weigh in deciding whether to charge a company.  

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) 

  • USTR announced a public consultation process ahead of the 2027 joint review of the United States-Mexico-Canada […]
By |2026-10-09T12:11:19-04:00October 9, 2026|news, Snapshot|0 Comments
Read More

CBP Proposes Bonds and Earlier Filing for Low-Value Informal Entries: Comments Due December 7 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Low-Value Shipments that would change informal entry requirements for shipments valued at $2,500 or less, including shipments arriving through international mail. The proposal would add a bond requirement for informal entries, move the Type 11 filing deadline earlier, and create a new electronic Entry Type 13 for mail. Importers, e-commerce sellers, licensed customs brokers, and carriers that handle low-value shipments are affected, and comments are due December 7, 2026. 

Key Takeaways 

  • CBP proposes that all Type 11 (informal) and new Type 13 (informal mail) entry filers obtain a basic importation and entry bond, single transaction or continuous, before release. 
  • The proposed Type 11 filing deadline moves from “within 15 calendar days after landing,” to “upon or before the date of importation”, and Type 11 entries would be filed electronically. 
  • A new Entry Type 13 for international mail of $2,500 or less would be filed electronically by the owner or purchaser in ACE or by a licensed customs broker. 
  • Carriers filing inward manifests would report the mail tracking number, and unentered mail of $2,500 or less would be considered abandoned after 15 days. 
  • Comments are due December 7, 2026, under docket USCBP-2026-0298 on regulations.gov. 

Low-Value Shipments Face New Entry Requirements 

CBP […]

By |2026-10-09T11:49:46-04:00October 9, 2026|ACE, Customs Broker, Import, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

BIS Announces $2 Million Settlement with Lambda Research Corporation for 66 Export Control Violations 

On October 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a $2 million administrative settlement with Massachusetts-based Lambda Research Corporation involving 66 alleged violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The case involved exports of optical and illumination design software, automatic software updates, and transactions with parties on the Entity List and Unverified List. 

Key Takeaways 

  • EAR99 does not mean unrestricted. Even software classified as EAR99 may require an export license when the recipient is on the BIS Entity List. 
  • Automatic software updates can constitute exports. BIS charged Lambda with violations involving software updates transmitted to restricted parties after their addition to the Entity List. 
  • Restricted-party screening must be ongoing. A customer who was not restricted when a transaction began may become subject to licensing requirements later. 
  • Distributors do not eliminate export compliance obligations. Exporters must evaluate the actual end users of their products, including transactions conducted through intermediaries. 
  • The Unverified List creates additional compliance requirements. Certain transactions involving Unverified List parties require a UVL statement even when an export license is not otherwise required. 
  • Informal compliance efforts are insufficient. BIS cited Lambda’s lack of written export compliance procedures, employee training, and designated compliance personnel. 
  • Voluntary self-disclosure does not eliminate penalties. […]
By |2026-10-09T11:34:59-04:00October 9, 2026|EAR, Enforcement, Export, Penalty, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|0 Comments
Read More

Treasury’s First Outbound Investment Penalty: $200,000 Against Amidi LLC 

On October 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the first civil penalty issued under its Outbound Investment Security Program (OISP): $200,000 against Amidi LLC, the U.S. parent company of the organization known as Plug and Play Tech Center, for failing to notify Treasury of an investment its Chinese fund subsidiary made in a Chinese embodied artificial intelligence company. 

The underlying investment was approximately $92,478. U.S. investors, venture funds, accelerators, and corporates with offshore investment vehicles should take note: the notification obligation reaches transactions by a U.S. person’s controlled foreign entities, and Treasury has now penalized a missed filing on a small deal. 

Key Takeaways 

  • Treasury imposed a $200,000 civil penalty on Amidi LLC for failing to notify Treasury of an investment of approximately $92,478 in a Chinese AI and robotics company. 
  • The investment was made by Amidi’s Chinese fund subsidiary. The OISP regulations require a U.S. person to notify Treasury of a notifiable transaction by its controlled foreign entity. 
  • The current rules contain no general de minimis threshold for notification, and the existing regulations at 31 CFR Part 850 remain in effect while Treasury implements the COINS Act. 

What Happened 

On April 19, 2025, a Chinese fund owned by Amidi invested approximately $92,478 in Shanghai Qiongche Intelligent Technology Company Limited (Noematrix), […]

By |2026-10-09T11:26:48-04:00October 9, 2026|EAR, Enforcement, Export, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|0 Comments
Read More

A Warning for Importers: A CBP Prior Disclosure Does Not Count for DOJ

On October 1, 2026, DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division issued Directive 26-12, which makes trade fraud a corporate enforcement priority and lists ten factors prosecutors must weigh in deciding whether to charge a company. In recent remarks, a government official added a point every importer should hear: a prior disclosure filed with CBP does not count as a voluntary self-disclosure for DOJ purposes. Importers, their executives, and the companies that buy from them, now face a dedicated DOJ trade fraud section, data-driven lead generation, and a sharp focus on country of origin. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division issued Directive 26-12 on October 1, 2026, listing customs-related fraud as one of four corporate investigation priorities and naming ten factors prosecutors must place great weight on when deciding whether to charge a company. 
  • A CBP prior disclosure is not a voluntary self-disclosure to DOJ. DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy states that disclosures made only to regulatory agencies generally do not qualify. 
  • Country of origin fraud is the leading pattern. The government official said more than half of the trade fraud cases over the past year involved country of origin. 
  • Never filing an entry with CBP is not a defense. Earlier this year, a company pleaded guilty and paid a $6,382,000 fine for buying imported plywood it knew(or was willfully blind to the fact […]
By |2026-10-09T11:15:19-04:00October 8, 2026|U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|0 Comments
Read More

Your Data Is Still Not Your Own at the Border: The Second Circuit’s Alisigwe Ruling and CBP’s 2026 Device Search Directive 

On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in United States v. Alisigwe that the government needs neither a warrant nor any level of suspicion to manually search a traveler’s cellphone at the border, and it rejected four district court decisions within the circuit that had required a warrant. The ruling follows CBP’s replacement of its 2018 electronic device search policy with Directive 3340-049B, effective January 1, 2026. Business travelers, in-house counsel, and companies whose employees carry client, pricing, or technical data through ports of entry in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont should revisit their travel practices now. 

Key Takeaways 

  • The Second Circuit held that a manual search of a cellphone at the border is a routine search that requires no warrant and no suspicion, and that the First Amendment imposes no separate warrant requirement. 
  • The court expressly left open whether a forensic search, such as an off-site extraction of a phone’s data, requires reasonable suspicion. 
  • CBP Directive 3340-049B permits basic searches with or without suspicion and limits advanced (equipment-assisted) searches to cases involving reasonable suspicion or a national security concern, with supervisory approval. 
  • Under the directive, officers may not intentionally use a device to access information stored solely in the cloud, and a device that […]
By |2026-10-07T11:27:28-04:00October 7, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, International Travel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

Commerce Restricts Polysilicon Stockpiling Ahead of December 4 Section 232 Tariffs: What Importers and Customs Brokers Need to Know 

On September 24, 2026, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a temporary final rule at 91 FR 60505 establishing how the Department of Commerce will identify and restrict importers that stockpile polysilicon and polysilicon derivatives (Polysilicon Products) before the Section 232 minimum import prices and tariffs under Proclamation 11052 take effect on December 4, 2026. The rule caps weekly import volumes for new importers of record, creates a waiver process, and reminds customs brokers of their enforcement exposure. Importers of polysilicon, the covered HTSUS 3818 products, solar cells, and solar modules, along with the customs brokers that file their entries, are affected now. 

Key Takeaways 

  • BIS published a temporary final rule at 91 FR 60505 on September 24, 2026. It is effective September 22, 2026, through December 3, 2026. 
  • Commerce is monitoring existing importers of record (IORs). An IOR that Commerce determines is importing Polysilicon Products in volumes substantially greater than its historic averages will be prohibited from making further entries of those products prior to December 4, 2026. 
  • New IORs that registered with CBP on or after August 6, 2026, are prohibited from importing above fixed weekly quantities by HTSUS subheading, absent Commerce approval. 
  • Prohibited or restricted companies may apply to Commerce for a waiver at Polysilicon232@bis.doc.gov. Commerce intends to respond within 14 days of receipt. 
By |2026-10-06T08:14:34-04:00October 6, 2026|Customs Broker, Import, Tariffs, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

CBP Issues Palm Oil WROs Against Two Indonesian Producers: What Importers Need to Know 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued two Withhold Release Orders against palm oil and its derivative products produced in Indonesia by Mitra Aneka Rezeki and Hardaya Inti Plantation, directing detention of that merchandise at all U.S. ports of entry. The orders reach any importer whose palm oil or palm-derived inputs trace to either producer. Importers of food, personal care, cleanings, and industrial products should confirm whether either company sits anywhere in their supply chain. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • CBP issued two Withhold Release Orders (WROs) covering palm oil and its derivative products produced in Indonesia by Mitra Aneka Rezeki (MAR) and Hardaya Inti Plantation (HIP). CBP stated that, effective immediately, personnel at all U.S. ports of entry will detain that merchandise. 
  • CBP cited nine International Labour Organization (ILO) forced labor indicators at MAR and seven at HIP. With this action, CBP stated it now oversees and enforces 60 WROs and eight Findings under 19 U.S.C. § 1307. 
  • Under 19 C.F.R. § 12.43, an importer contesting a WRO detention submits tailored certificates of origin from the foreign seller or owner and a detailed statement from the ultimate consignee within 3 months after the date the article was imported stating that no forced labor was used in making the product. DTL’s read: that record takes longer to build than the deadline allows if the work starts at detention. 

What CBP Announced

According to CBP’s […]

By |2026-10-05T08:24:41-04:00October 5, 2026|Enforcement, Forced Labor, Import, Supply Chain, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

Breaking Trade News: Palm Oil WRO, Section 301 at the CIT, OFAC Sanctions

This week’s recap of the latest customs and international trade news:      

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

  • CBP issued two Withhold Release Orders on September 29 against palm oil and its derivative products produced by Mitra Aneka Rezeki and Hardaya Inti Plantation in Indonesia. Effective immediately, CBP will detain covered shipments at all U.S. ports of entry based on evidence reasonably indicating the use of forced labor.  
  • CBP published guidance on September 28 implementing import exclusions for certain Canadian products covered by presidential proclamations addressing alcoholic beverages, motor vehicles, and dairy. Effective September 29, covered goods cannot be entered for consumption, admitted into foreign trade zones or bonded warehouses, or transported in bond. 
  • CBP is seeking comments on its entry and entry summary procedures as it prepares to submit them to the Office of Management and Budget for re-approval. Changes to the procedures include the new Entry Type 13 and the inclusion of new parties to the Global Business Identifier test.  

Administration 

Court of […]

By |2026-10-02T13:33:48-04:00October 2, 2026|news, Snapshot|0 Comments
Read More

CBP Seized My Goods: What Happens Next and What Are My Options?

Receiving notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has seized your merchandise can bring an import transaction to an immediate halt. More importantly, a seizure means CBP believes there is a legal basis to take possession of the merchandise and potentially pursue forfeiture. 

A CBP seizure is not the same as a routine delay or detention at the border. Once merchandise has been seized, importers face specific procedures and deadlines for challenging the seizure or requesting relief. How you respond can affect whether the goods are released, forfeited, or become the subject of additional enforcement action. 

If CBP has seized your shipment, understanding why the goods were seized, what your Notice of Seizure says, and what options are available should be your first priorities. 

Why Does CBP Seize Imported Goods? 

CBP is responsible for enforcing hundreds of laws and regulations governing merchandise entering the United States. Merchandise may be seized when CBP determines that the goods were imported, entered, or introduced contrary to law. 

Common reasons for CBP seizures include: 

  • Counterfeit goods and intellectual property rights violations; 
  • Prohibited or restricted merchandise; 
  • Undeclared or improperly declared merchandise; 
  • False statements concerning country of origin, value, classification, or other entry information; 
  • Attempts to evade customs duties; 
  • Certain violations involving antidumping […]
By |2026-10-02T13:12:17-04:00October 2, 2026|Enforcement, Import, Penalty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More
Go to Top