Import Archives | Customs & International Trade Law Blog

DOJ and DHS Publish Comprehensive Trade Fraud Enforcement Guide: What Importers Need to Know

Short summary: The DOJ and DHS have jointly published a new Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement, highlighting the government’s coordinated approach to combating customs fraud and strengthening import compliance. The guide explains key enforcement authorities, common trade fraud schemes, and the government’s expectations for importers, customs brokers, and others participating in global supply chains.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have released a new 31-page Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement, providing one of the clearest public statements yet on how the federal government views customs fraud, enforcement priorities, and importer compliance obligations. The guide was developed by the Trade Fraud Task Force, a partnership that includes DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other federal agencies.

While much of the guide summarizes existing laws and enforcement authorities, its significance lies in the government’s messaging. It makes clear that customs violations are no longer viewed as merely technical or administrative issues. Instead, DOJ and DHS repeatedly characterize trade fraud as a threat to economic security, national security, public safety, and human rights, signaling that aggressive enforcement will continue across multiple agencies.

Combatting Trade Fraud Is a Priority for the Federal Government

One of the report’s primary themes is that trade fraud extends far beyond the underpayment of duties. According to the guide, fraudulent import practices undermine domestic manufacturers, deprive the government of […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-21T12:47:51-04:00July 21, 2026|Import, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|Comments Off

IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: CIT Will Order Reliquidation of Some Finally Liquidated Entries

Short summary: The U.S. Court of International Trade has announced that it plans to order U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to reliquidate certain finally liquidated entries in approximately 3,700 pending IEEPA tariff refund cases once CAPE Phase 3 launches. The court also confirmed that CBP continues to expand CAPE’s refund capabilities, including future functionality for entries with open protests, and provided an update on the billions of dollars in refunds already being processed. These developments represent another significant step toward resolving pending IEEPA tariff refund claims for importers.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has announced another significant development in the ongoing litigation over tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a July 15, 2026, order, Judge Richard K. Eaton confirmed that the court intends to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to reliquidate certain finally liquidated entries in the approximately 3,700 pending CIT IEEPA refund cases once the next phase of CBP’s Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) refund system becomes operational.

While the order does not immediately authorize refunds of liquidated entries, it provides important insight into how the court and CBP plan to move thousands of pending refund claims toward resolution.

Reliquidation Order Planned for Thousands of Cases

The court stated that, in connection with the anticipated launch of CAPE Phase 3, it will issue an order directing CBP to reliquidate certain finally liquidated entries […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-16T14:00:32-04:00July 16, 2026|Import, International Trade, Tariffs, U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

Understanding HTSUS Classification: Why Getting It Wrong Is Expensive

Summary: HTSUS classification determines the duty rate, applicability of tariffs such as Section 301 and Section 232, trade program eligibility, and helps determine whether any AD/CVD duties apply to every imported product. Misclassification often goes undetected for months or years, and since importers tend to reuse the same code for every entry of the same product, a single error can compound into significant back duties, penalties, and prior disclosure obligations. This article breaks down how classification errors happen, what reasonable care looks like, and how a documented classification process can prevent a small mistake from becoming a costly one.

Every product entering the United States must be assigned a classification code under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and that ten-digit number determines far more than most importers realize. It sets the duty rate and tariffs owed on a shipment, flags whether a product needs additional agency review, and establishes whether it qualifies for preferential trade programs. A misclassification, even an unintentional one, can trigger back duties, penalties, and a prior disclosure process that could have been avoided entirely with the right classification from the start.

What HTSUS Classification Actually Determines

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is the United States’ implementation of the international Harmonized System, a standardized numerical method of classifying traded products used by customs authorities around the world. Every entry filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requires an HTSUS code, and […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-10T11:00:19-04:00July 10, 2026|Import, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

Mandatory CPSC eFiling is Here

Key Takeaways

Starting July 8, 2026, importers of most regulated consumer products must electronically file (eFile) Certificate of Compliance data into CBP’s ACE system at the time of entry, no longer on request.
At launch, CPSC does not intend to have ACE reject entries or deny admission solely for failure to eFile, only warning messages. But CPSC will still enforce certificate requirements, seek seizure of non-compliant goods, and adjust your risk score.
A testing exemption or determination does not eliminate the certificate. You must still issue a certificate citing the rule and naming the exemption. This is a trap that catches importers who assume “exempt” means “nothing to file.”
Products entering a Foreign Trade Zone and later withdrawn for consumption or warehousing get a later effective date: January 8, 2027.
The eFiling rule changes how certificate data is filed, not which products need a certificate. Certification has been required since 2008.

A Compliance Shift Disguised as a Filing Update

Since 2008, importers and domestic manufacturers of CPSC-regulated consumer products have been required to maintain a Certificate of Compliance: a Children’s Product Certificate (CPC) for children’s products, or a General Certificate of Conformity (GCC) for regulated general-use products, and produce it on request. Under […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-08T10:11:22-04:00July 8, 2026|ACE, Import, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)|Comments Off

FDA Proposes New Rule Requiring Foreign Tobacco Manufacturers to Register with the Agency

Short summary: The FDA has proposed a new rule that would require foreign tobacco product manufacturers to register their establishments and submit product listings to the agency, aligning them with requirements already applicable to domestic manufacturers. While the rule is not yet final, it signals increased oversight of imported tobacco products and enhanced coordination between the FDA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

On June 26, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a proposed rule that would significantly expand its oversight of imported tobacco products. If finalized, the rule would require foreign tobacco product manufacturers to register their establishments with the FDA and submit product listings. These requirements have long applied to domestic manufacturers but not foreign producers.

The proposal is intended to close a regulatory gap, strengthen FDA enforcement, and improve the agency’s ability to identify and stop unauthorized tobacco products from entering the United States, particularly e-cigarettes and other youth-appealing products. It also represents another step toward increased scrutiny of imported tobacco products and the companies that manufacture them.

What Would Change?

Under the proposed rule, foreign establishments that manufacture, prepare, compound, or process tobacco products for sale in the United States would be required to:

Register their manufacturing establishments with the FDA;
Submit product listings identifying the tobacco products manufactured […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-07T10:27:14-04:00July 7, 2026|Import, Tobacco, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)|Comments Off

CBP CAPE Phase 2 Update: 4.36 Million Entries Fail, Finally-Liquidated Importers Left Out

KEY TAKEAWAYS

CBP has certified roughly $71.06 billion in IEEPA refunds and cleared 18.1 million entries through CAPE — but the headline number hides who is being left out.
4.36 million entries failed CAPE’s entry-level checks. If your entry is finally liquidated beyond CBP’s 90-day reliquidation window, CAPE will not refund it, and the government is fighting to keep it that way on appeal.
Phase 2 (reconciliation-flagged entries) went live June 29, 2026. Finally, liquidated entries remain in dispute at the Federal Circuit (No. 26-1898).
The government’s stated position: no refund on finally-liquidated entries unless the importer filed suit at the CIT. Filing preserves your standing while the appeal plays out; it is not a guarantee of recovery.
Three fixable failure reasons: importer/filer mismatch, entry-number errors, and CSV template misalignment are costing importers refunds they are otherwise entitled to.

A $71 Billion Headline That Hides Who Isn’t Getting Paid

On July 1, 2026, CBP filed its latest status declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States (CIT No. 25-00595) — the lead case now governing how IEEPA duty refunds are administered through CBP’s Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) platform. The numbers are large. As of June 29, 2026, CBP reported that CAPE declarations had cleared file validation covering 18.1 million entries, that 15.92 […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-03T12:33:42-04:00July 3, 2026|ACE, Import, Tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Glyphosate from China

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against Glyphosate from China. The allegation is that imports from China are being dumped and unfairly subsidized.

Full list of importers here.
Full list of exporters here.

Background on AD/CVD Investigations

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent.

Scope of the Investigation

The merchandise covered by these investigations is glyphosate (N(phosphonomethyl) glycine) in all forms, concentrations, and formulations.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 2931.49.0020, 3808.93.5020, and 2931.49.0080.

Full scope here.

Next Steps

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-02T07:40:24-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, Import, People's Republic of China|Comments Off

The U.S. Declined to Renew USMCA – What Importers Must Do Now

USMCA remains in force, but annual reviews create a new layer of origin compliance risk that importers can’t afford to ignore.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

USMCA did not end. On July 1, 2026, the U.S. declined to renew the agreement for a fresh 16-year term, moving it into annual reviews. The pact stays in force, potentially through 2036, unless a country formally exits with six months’ notice.
Nothing changes at the port tomorrow. USMCA-qualifying goods still enter duty-free. Your certifications, rules-of-origin claims, and preference elections remain valid today.
The real risk is enforcement, not policy. A decade of open renegotiation puts rules of origin, especially auto content and regional-value-content thresholds, into permanent play. Origin claims made under old assumptions become audit and penalty exposure.
Act now on documentation, not headlines. Importers should stress-test USMCA certifications, tighten origin recordkeeping, and model exposure to Section 232 auto/steel/aluminum tariffs that already sit on top of the agreement.

The Challenge: Compliance & Enforcement

The news landed fast and loud: the United States declined to renew the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2026. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed the U.S. would forgo a fresh 16-year term in favor of annual reviews of the pact. Some coverage framed this as the end of North American free trade. It is not.

Here is the […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-02T07:30:23-04:00July 2, 2026|Import, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), USMCA|Comments Off

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-02T07:24:27-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

The CPSC eFiling Deadline is Here!

Summary: On December 18, 2024, the CPSC voted to approve a Final Rule requiring importers of regulated consumer products to electronically file Certificate of Compliance data at the time of entry. The rule takes effect July 8, 2026, for most imported consumer products. This article covers what the CPSC eFiling requirement means for importers, and the steps businesses should take now to ensure compliance before the deadline.

On July 8, 2026, the CPSC’s mandatory eFiling requirements take effect for most imported consumer products. That means importers can no longer wait to be asked for a Certificate of Compliance. These certificates must now be electronically filed in CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) at the time of entry, not after the fact.

Importers that are not compliant with the applicable effective date may experience delays in the release of their shipments and increased scrutiny by CPSC at the port of entry. For products entering from a Foreign Trade Zone, the compliance date is January 8, 2027.

CPSC’s eFiling Proposal

Since 2008, importers have been required to maintain Certificates of Compliance stating that the product they are importing meets all applicable safety standards. However, these certificates did not need to be filed at the time of import.

In June 2022, CPSC announced a Beta Pilot test with CBP for the eFiling of certificate data for regulated […]