International Law Archives | Customs & International Trade Law Blog

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-10-07T11:27:28-04:00October 7, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, International Travel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments

CBP eRecordation Program Update: What Rights Holders and Importers Should Watch After CBP’s August 2026 Briefing

CBP’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch briefed eRecordation holders on August 27, 2026 on changes to the recordation application, future expanded pre-seizure disclosure authority, pending legislation, and an enforcement posture that has to consequence delivery, especially collecting penalties for IP violations. This article updates our earlier overview of CBP’s recordation program and identifies the items that should prompt rights holders to revisit existing recordations and importers to tighten sourcing controls. If your recordation was filed more than a year ago, several of these changes affect you directly.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

CBP’s FY 2025 IPR seizures reached roughly 78 million items with an MSRP near $7.4 billion, up sharply from the FY 2024 figures.
The e-Recordation portal now validates against USPTO data. Supplemental Register marks, dead registrations, and classes not on the principal registration are rejected.
Renewals are $80 per class and ownership changes are $80. Up to three contact emails are now accepted; one should be a monitored general inbox.
CBP is piloting a Master Price List collection (national MSRP for every covered product), which will be an upload option on new applications and renewals.
The Counterfeit Notification Act, which would let CBP share shipping labels, invoices, and e-commerce platform information with rights holders and their representatives , has passed both the House and Senate but must still clear final congressional action before being […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-31T09:45:38-04:00August 31, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, International Trade|Comments Off

DHS Adds 43 Companies to the UFLPA Entity List, the Largest Expansion Yet

On July 31, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security, acting on behalf of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), announced the addition of 43 companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, along with technical updates to the official names of two entities already listed.

The New List

The revised list published as an appendix to a Federal Register notice on August 3, 2026, bringing the total to 187 entities, a roughly 30% increase, and the single largest expansion since the UFLPA took effect in 2022. The newly designated companies operate in DHS’s high-priority enforcement sectors, including aluminum, apparel, copper, cotton, and tomatoes and downstream products. Notably, a substantial share of the additions are headquartered outside the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), in provinces such as Shandong, Jiangsu, and Henan, which highlights that Entity List exposure is not a question of geography alone.

CBP’s UFLPA Authority

Under the UFLPA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) applies the UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption under 19 U.S.C. § 1307 to goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by any of the newly listed entities, and, critically, to downstream merchandise that incorporates their inputs. There is no de minimis threshold: a single component, raw material, or subassembly traceable to a listed company can support detention of an entire shipment.

To secure release, an importer must either show that the UFLPA […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-28T14:31:22-04:00August 28, 2026|Enforcement, International Business, International Law, news|Comments Off

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-14T11:56:45-04:00August 14, 2026|Enforcement, International Business, International Law, news|Comments Off

New OFAC Advisory: Signs of Sham Transactions and Sanctions Evasion post-divestment from Blocked Persons

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released an important advisory addressing the growing use of sham transactions to evade U.S. sanctions. The guidance highlights how sanctioned individuals and entities often attempt to disguise their continuing interest in property through opaque legal structures, proxies, and other intermediaries. OFAC’s message is clear: transactions that merely appear to transfer ownership but do not genuinely extinguish a blocked person’s interest remain prohibited.

What OFAC Defines as a “Sham Transaction”

Sham transactions occur when blocked persons “give up their property on paper only,” while continuing to benefit from or control the asset. These arrangements often involve:

Proxies, straw owners, or front companies acting on behalf of sanctioned individuals.
Opaque legal structures, including multi‑layered LLCs, partnerships, or trusts.
Transfers to family members or close associates who may serve as facilitators.
Commercially unreasonable transfers, such as those lacking adequate consideration.
Continued use or control of the asset by the blocked person after the purported transfer.

Pro Tip: Look beyond legal formalities and identify the economic realities of the transaction.

Red Flags Identified by OFAC

The advisory outlines several indicators that a transaction may be a sham designed to evade sanctions. These include:

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-04-03T14:15:24-04:00April 3, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, International Trade, Investigation, U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)|Comments Off

FinCEN Issues NPRM to Fully Implement Whistleblower Program

Authors:

Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law

Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

FinCEN’s March 30, 2026, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) marks a major step toward fully operationalizing the agency’s whistleblower program, designed to incentivize reporting of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), sanctions, IEEPA, and other illicit finance violations. The proposal outlines how whistleblowers can securely submit information, how awards will be determined, and what protections will be available.

This development reflects the Treasury Department’s broader strategy to strengthen financial system integrity and encourage actionable tips that support enforcement efforts. For financial institutions, compliance professionals, and potential whistleblowers, the NPRM provides long‑awaited clarity on program structure and expectations.

Overview of the Proposed Rule

FinCEN’s NPRM proposes a comprehensive framework for administering whistleblower submissions and awards. Key elements include:

Secure submission procedures for individuals reporting suspected violations of the BSA, OFAC sanctions, and related laws.
Eligibility criteria for whistleblower awards, including documentation requirements and timelines.
Award ranges of 10–30% of monetary penalties collected when a whistleblower’s information leads to a successful enforcement action.
Robust protections for individuals who provide information, including confidentiality and anti‑retaliation safeguards.

These provisions aim to encourage early, detailed reporting while ensuring whistleblowers are shielded from adverse consequences.

Why FinCEN Is Prioritizing Whistleblower Incentives

The NPRM aligns with Treasury’s broader […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-04-03T10:52:11-04:00April 3, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, Trade Policy, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)|Comments Off

2022: A Year in Review

From all of us at Diaz Trade Law, we are immensely grateful for your support this year. While returning to a new normal post-pandemic, Diaz Trade Law still managed to save our clients MILLIONS of dollars in 2022. It is with great joy that we finish off 2022 filled with numerous achievements and accomplishments we are humbled to share with you. We look forward to assisting you in what we envision will be a better and brighter 2023!

Below we share some of our top 2022 success stories with you.

[…]

By Jennifer Diaz|2022-12-30T15:46:57-05:00December 31, 2022|AD/CVD, Best Practices, Customs Expert, Export, Import, International Law, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)|Comments Off

Customs Bulletin Weekly, Vol. 56, November 16, 2022, No. 45

Below is a recap for this week’s Customs Bulletin.

African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Textile Certificate of Origin
- The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was adopted by the U.S. with the enactment of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–200). The objectives of AGOA are (1) to provide for extension of duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to import sensitive articles normally excluded from GSP duty treatment, and (2) to provide for the entry of specific textile and apparel articles free of duty and free of any quantitative limits from eligible countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
- For preferential treatment of textile and apparel articles under AGOA, the exporter or producer is required to prepare a certificate of origin and provide it to the importer. The certificate of origin includes information such as name and address of the exporter, producer, and importer; the basis for which preferential treatment is claimed; and a description of the imported article(s). The importers are required to have the certificate in their possession at the time of the claim, and to provide it to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) upon request. The collection of this information is provided for in 19 CFR 10.214, 10.215, and 10.216.
- CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2022-11-17T09:53:38-05:00November 21, 2022|COVID-19, Federal Register, Import, International Business, International Law, International Trade, U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Uncategorized|Comments Off

Customs Bulletin Weekly, Vol. 56, November 2, 2022, No. 43

Below is a recap for this week’s Custom’s Bulletin.

Elimination of Customs Broker District Permit Fee
- Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), provides that individuals and business entities must hold a valid customs broker’s license and permit to transact customs business on behalf of others. The statute also sets forth standards for the issuance of broker licenses and permits; provides for disciplinary action against brokers in the form of suspension or revocation of such licenses and permits or assessment of monetary penalties; and, provides for the assessment of monetary penalties against other persons for conducting customs business without the required broker’s license.
- On June 5, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (85 FR 34549), proposing the elimination of customs broker district permit fees in parts 24 and 111.
- Consistent with the June 5, 2020, notice, CBP is publishing a final rule to, among other things, eliminate customs broker districts (see ‘‘Modernization of the Customs Broker Regulations’’ RIN 1651–AB16). Specifically, CBP is transitioning all brokers to national permits and expanding the scope of the national permit authority to allow national permit holders to conduct any type of customs business throughout the customs territory of the United States. As a result of the elimination of customs broker districts, CBP is amending in this document the regulations to eliminate customs broker district permit fees.
Modernization of the Customs Broker Regulations
- This document adopts […]