LinkedInFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeEmailPhone

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

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

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

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

2026 CBP Trade and Cargo Security Summit: Key Takeaways for Importers 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) brought together government officials and members of the trade community in Dallas from September 8–10, 2026, for its annual Trade and Cargo Security Summit (TCSS). This year’s theme “Knowing Your Supply Chain to Remain Compliant and Mitigate Risk” was reflected throughout three days of discussions on enforcement, supply chain visibility, artificial intelligence, forced labor, transshipment, CTPAT, cybersecurity, and the future of customs compliance.  

Here are some of the most important takeaways for importers.

  1. CBP Is Entering a New Era of Customs Enforcement

A major focus of the Summit was the Administration’s June 3, 2026 “Strengthening Customs Enforcement” Executive Order and the regulatory changes expected to follow. 

The Executive Order calls for, among other things, heightened requirements for Importers of Record (IORs), expanded data and identification requirements, and increased vetting of IORs and other parties throughout the import process. CBP officials emphasized that implementation will be an agency-wide effort and that additional regulatory packages are expected.  

The shift is already visible in the government’s broader enforcement posture. Discussions at the Summit emphasized customs fraud, shell companies, identity theft, false importer information, double invoicing, and other schemes CBP is encountering in the trade environment. CBP also stressed that its focus is not on ordinary clerical mistakes, but on identifying and escalating consequences for parties intentionally exploiting the system.  

  1. Supply Chain Visibility Is Becoming a National Security Issue

Perhaps no […]

By |2026-09-18T12:55:44-04:00September 18, 2026|Best Practices, CTPAT, Enforcement, Forced Labor, Import, Supply Chain, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on 2026 CBP Trade and Cargo Security Summit: Key Takeaways for Importers 
Read More

BIS FY2025 Annual Report Signals Major Increase in Export Enforcement 

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released its Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Report to Congress, providing a detailed look at the agency’s export control, licensing, and enforcement activity.  

Key Takeaways 

  • BIS reports an 18-fold increase in penalties, from approximately $16 million in calendar year 2024 to approximately $324 million in 2025. 
  • BIS completed 53 administrative enforcement actions, resulting in more than $108 million in civil penalties during FY2025. 
  • BIS enforcement activity included 455 warning letters, 705 detentions, 232 seizures, and 29 denial orders. 
  • BIS investigations resulted in 65 criminal convictions of individuals and companies during FY2025. 
  • BIS completed 1,840 end-use checks across 73 countries, demonstrating the agency’s ability to scrutinize transactions even after goods leave the United States. 
  • BIS added 142 entities to the Entity List, including parties associated with advanced computing, quantum technology, hypersonic weapons programs, and Iranian drone procurement. 
  • Licensing for Entity List parties has become significantly more restrictive: BIS reports granting only 16 new licenses to Entity List companies during Q2–Q4 2025. 
  • Exporters should reassess restricted-party screening, end-user and end-use diligence, product classification, licensing procedures, recordkeeping, and escalation protocols in light of […]
By |2026-09-11T14:55:38-04:00September 11, 2026|Best Practices, EAR, Enforcement, Export, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|Comments Off on BIS FY2025 Annual Report Signals Major Increase in Export Enforcement 
Read More

Wood Packaging Material Violations: What to Do When CBP Issues an EAN 

This article explains what an importer should do in the first 24 hours after CBP issues an Emergency Action Notification (EAN) for non-compliant wood packaging material (WPM), how CBP calculates and mitigates the penalties that follow, and how the new APHIS-approved shredder-hammermill treatment can save the underlying cargo. It matters because a WPM penalty is assessed at the full domestic value of the merchandise, requires no pre-penalty notice, and can be issued even when the importer fully complies with the EAN. The decisions made before the cargo leaves the port determine how much of that exposure survives. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • An Emergency Action Notification (EAN) for non-compliant wood packaging material is not the end of the matter. It is the start of a penalty file. Call counsel the day it arrives, not the day the penalty notice arrives. 
  • CBP penalties for WPM violations are assessed at the domestic value of the merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(b), with no pre-penalty notice required. A single violation is enough. The old five-violation threshold was eliminated in 2017. 
  • Mitigation is real but shrinks fast: 1 to 10 percent of the penalty on a first violation, 10 to 25 percent on a second, and a 25 percent floor on the third. Documented immediate remediation and cooperation are what move you toward the low end. 
  • Shredder-hammermilling is now an APHIS-approved treatment for non-compliant […]
By |2026-09-03T12:09:16-04:00September 3, 2026|Enforcement, Import, Penalty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Uncategorized|Comments Off on Wood Packaging Material Violations: What to Do When CBP Issues an EAN 
Read More

BIS End-Use Checks: What Happens When an Export Control Officer Calls Your Customer 

BIS has published a plain-language FAQ on its End-Use Check program, the on-site visits its Export Control Officers conduct at foreign consignees and end users of U.S.-origin items. This article explains what those visits are, what your foreign customer will be asked to produce, the statutory and regulatory authority behind the request, and the consequences when a check cannot be completed. It matters because the penalty for a failed check falls on the exporter’s ability to ship, not only on the foreign party being visited. 

Key Takeaways 

  • An End-Use Check (EUC) is BIS verifying, on site and overseas, that your foreign customer is who it says it is and used your items the way the license or the EAR required. 
  • A failed or incomplete check does not need a finding of wrongdoing to hurt you. The customer can land on the Unverified List, license exceptions disappear, and every shipment then requires a UVL statement. 
  • Since October 2022, a check that stays incomplete for 60 days after Unverified List placement, because a host government blocks it, triggers Entity List proceedings. 
  • The exporter’s exposure is set before the visit ever happens: by the accuracy of the license application, the quality of the paper trail, and whether the foreign party was told what to expect. 
  • Diaz Trade Law prepares exporters […]
By |2026-09-03T12:03:09-04:00September 3, 2026|Best Practices, EAR, Enforcement, Export, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|Comments Off on BIS End-Use Checks: What Happens When an Export Control Officer Calls Your Customer 
Read More

FinCEN Permanently Ends BOI Reporting for U.S. Companies and U.S. Persons Under the Corporate Transparency Act 

On August 11, 2026, the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule permanently removing the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information (BOI) under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). FinCEN states that U.S. companies are now exempt from BOI reporting requirements and no longer need to file BOI reports. The final rule also relieves U.S. persons from providing BOI to reporting companies and from updating or correcting information previously submitted to obtain a FinCEN identifier. For many domestic businesses, this marks a significant compliance shift—but foreign entities registered to do business in the United States may still have BOI obligations.

What Changed? 

FinCEN’s final rule makes permanent the relief first announced in the March 2025 interim final rule. Under the final rule, U.S. companies are exempt from BOI reporting requirements and therefore are no longer required to file BOI reports. Reporting companies also do not need to report BOI for U.S. person beneficial owners or U.S. person company applicants, and U.S. persons do not need to provide BOI to reporting companies. 

FinCEN also announced that U.S. persons with FinCEN identifiers are not required to update or correct the information they previously submitted to FinCEN. This is important for individuals who filed BOI information before the rule changed and who otherwise may have expected ongoing update obligations.

Who Still Has BOI Reporting Obligations? 

The final rule does not eliminate […]

By |2026-08-14T11:56:45-04:00August 14, 2026|Enforcement, International Business, International Law, news|Comments Off on FinCEN Permanently Ends BOI Reporting for U.S. Companies and U.S. Persons Under the Corporate Transparency Act 
Read More

EAPA Update: CBP Finds Evasion Despite Full Cooperation 

A recent EAPA evasion finding against a solar importer reveals how a single country-of-origin misclassification can trigger steep consequences, even when the importer fully cooperates with CBP.

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • CBP issued a Notice of Determination as to Evasion in an EAPA case, finding that a major solar-module importer evaded antidumping AD/CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. 
  • Report the cell, not the module.  For solar modules assembled in a third country, the AD/CVD-relevant country of origin is where the cell was made, not where the module was assembled. Declaring the assembly country can be a material, false statement under EAPA. 
  • Cooperation does not erase the duty.  The company fully cooperated, but CBP found evasion anyway. 
  • The exposure is severe.  Cash-deposit rates reached up to 271.28% (Vietnam AD) and 238.95% (China-wide AD).
  • If you assemble abroad and import into the U.S., audit your country-of-origin declarations now — before an allegation does it for you. 

The Evasion Case 

On June 23, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Notice of Determination as to Evasion in EAPA Consolidated Case No. 8163, finding substantial evidence that a major solar-module importer evaded antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CVD) duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. The finding reached the Vietnam Circumvention Determination and the Malaysia and Vietnam AD/CVD Orders. 

The […]

By |2026-07-02T07:24:27-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on EAPA Update: CBP Finds Evasion Despite Full Cooperation 
Read More
Go to Top