LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

Enforcement

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

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 |2026-10-09T11:35:03-04:00October 9, 2026|EAR, Enforcement, Export, penalty, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Uncategorized|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 |2026-10-07T11:27:35-04:00October 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 |2026-10-05T08:24:45-04:00October 5, 2026|Enforcement, Forced Labor, Import, Supply Chain, 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 |2026-09-18T12:55:53-04:00September 18, 2026|Best Practices, CTPAT, Enforcement, Forced Labor, Import, Supply Chain, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
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 |2026-09-03T12:02:14-04:00September 3, 2026|Best Practices, EAR, Enforcement, Export, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Uncategorized|0 Comments
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top