Import

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 […]

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 […]

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 |2026-07-02T07:40:26-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, China, Import|0 Comments

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 […]

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 […]

Go to Top