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

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

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

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

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 |2026-10-06T08:14:29-04:00October 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 |2026-10-05T08:24:45-04:00October 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 |2026-10-02T13:13:08-04:00October 2, 2026|Enforcement, Import, penalty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

Diaz Trade Law Of Counsel David Craven Challenges Treatment of AD/CVD Entries at the Court of International Trade 

As U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues processing refunds of tariffs unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), one category of entries presents a particularly complicated problem: imports that are also subject to antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). 

For these importers, the timing of an IEEPA refund could affect more than when they get their money back. It could potentially affect the amount of antidumping duties they ultimately owe. 

David Craven, Of Counsel to Diaz Trade Law, represents Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc., and is challenging that problem before the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc. v. Trump, Court No. 26-00134. 

On July 28, Craven filed a Motion to Lift Stay and for Issuance of Order Clarifying Refunds, asking the CIT to address an emerging conflict between CBP’s IEEPA refund process and the Department of Commerce’s calculation of antidumping duties. 

At the heart of the case is a procedural catch-22: Commerce is treating IEEPA duties as a cost when calculating certain antidumping margins because the duties have not yet been refunded, while CBP’s current refund process may require the affected AD/CVD entries to liquidate before those refunds can be issued. 

Why Type 03 Entries Are Different 

Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect […]

By |2026-09-18T13:16:35-04:00September 18, 2026|AD/CVD, tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|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