Import Archives - Page 2 of 91 - Customs & International Trade Law Firm

Mandatory CPSC eFiling is Here
Gallery
Mandatory CPSC eFiling is Here
ACE, Import, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

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Products entering a Foreign Trade Zone and later withdrawn for consumption or warehousing get a later effective date: January 8, 2027.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|2026-07-08T10:11:26-04:00July 8, 2026|ACE, Import, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)|0 Comments

FDA Proposes New Rule Requiring Foreign Tobacco Manufacturers to Register with the Agency
Gallery
FDA Proposes New Rule Requiring Foreign Tobacco Manufacturers to Register with the Agency
Import, Tobacco, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

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|2026-07-07T10:27:17-04:00July 7, 2026|Import, Tobacco, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)|0 Comments

CBP CAPE Phase 2 Update: 4.36 Million Entries Fail, Finally-Liquidated Importers Left Out
Gallery
CBP CAPE Phase 2 Update: 4.36 Million Entries Fail, Finally-Liquidated Importers Left Out
ACE, Import, tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

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|2026-07-03T12:33:45-04:00July 3, 2026|ACE, Import, tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Glyphosate from China
Gallery
New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Glyphosate from China
AD/CVD, China, Import

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

The U.S. Declined to Renew USMCA – What Importers Must Do Now
Gallery
The U.S. Declined to Renew USMCA – What Importers Must Do Now
Import, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), USMCA

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|2026-07-02T07:30:25-04:00July 2, 2026|Import, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), USMCA|0 Comments

Previous 123 Next