CBP is changing its enforcement strategy, and importers cannot afford to treat these developments as business as usual. Errors that once passed unnoticed are now being flagged as compliance risks. Audits, penalties, and investigations are more frequent, and the scope of what triggers them continues to grow. In this environment, taking a passive approach to trade compliance is not sustainable.
Transshipment is Under the Microscope
CBP has increased attention on transshipment, especially where goods are routed through third countries to obscure their true country of origin. In many cases, products of Chinese origin are shipped through countries such as Vietnam or other parts of Southeast Asia and declared as originating there to avoid higher tariffs. CBP has made clear that routing alone does not change origin, and misrepresenting origin remains a primary enforcement focus.
This distinction matters because Country of Origin is not the same as Country of Shipment. Even if goods are exported from a third country, origin is determined by where substantial transformation occurs. Importers that cannot demonstrate legitimate manufacturing or transformation risk CF-28 requests and further enforcement actions. Without documentation prepared in advance, companies often have only 30 days to respond, which can force rushed data collection and expose gaps in compliance.
In addition, CBP is expanding its analysis beyond routing to include ownership and manufacturing control. Partial Chinese ownership, including joint ventures or supplier relationships, can increase scrutiny when combined with third-country routing. CBP is moving toward broader interpretations that prioritize control and economic benefit over legal registration alone. Importers must be able to document not only where goods are shipped from, but also where they are made, how they are transformed, and who controls the facilities and supply chain inputs.
The 50 Percent Rule Is Delayed, Not Gone
The Bureau of Industry and Security has delayed enforcement of the 50 percent rule by one year. This rule is primarily export focused. It restricts exports to any entity that is 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly through aggregated ownership, by parties on US restricted lists. Exporters are expected to understand who ultimately owns and controls the entities they sell to, not just the name listed on the transaction.
While the rule applies to exports, importers can still be affected if their goods, components, or technology are later exported. Many importers operate in global supply chains tied to export activity, so visibility into ownership is essential.
Standard declarations may miss indirect ownership risks. This delay is a chance to review supplier and customer ties, especially in cross-border or related-party transactions.
Tariff Refunds Require Legal and Operational Readiness
The possibility of IEEPA tariff refunds has introduced a narrow opportunity for importers. Businesses that paid duties under IEEPA provisions could recover those costs, but only if their rights have been preserved. Filing protests, extending liquidation windows, and tracking duty payments are all required steps. Many importers fail to monitor liquidation dates, leaving them unable to protest once the deadline passes.
Companies seeking refunds should enroll in ACE Export Reports and set up ACH refund accounts. These actions are procedural but essential. The decision on the legality of IEEPA tariffs by the US Supreme Court is still pending, and there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome. However, missing the chance to claim due to procedural missteps is an avoidable failure.
Valuation and Classification Mistakes Are Easy Targets
CBP enforcement is increasingly data-driven. That means inconsistencies in declared values, overstatements in transportation costs, and questionable classifications are being picked up automatically. The more entries a company has, the higher the probability that one of them will fall out of bounds.
Internal audits are the most effective way to manage this risk. Importers should review all high-volume classifications and check for reasonable declared values.
Entries involving First Sale pricing, related-party transactions, or high shipping costs should be reviewed for accuracy and proper allocation. CBP is not looking for just fraud; repeated mistakes is enough to justify penalties.
CBP’s Enforcement Tools Are Expanding
CBP now has updated systems that allow enforcement across more data points. The agency can process 32 HTS codes per line, and bond amounts are being recalculated using an 11-digit model. As a result, even entries with a correct classification may flag issues if other variables, like value or bond sufficiency, look unusual.
“The complexity of CBP’s systems is growing fast, and so is the risk of triggering audits over technical errors,” shares Karen Kenney, Dimerco’s Trade Compliance Strategist.
Importers that are not monitoring their bond saturation or margin may find themselves out of compliance without warning. CBP systems are capable of identifying these issues well before an importer’s internal processes do.
What to Watch in the Year Ahead
More tariff activity is expected in 2026. The trend is toward commodity-specific enforcement, particularly in semiconductors, steel, aluminum, copper, robotics, and industrial machinery. Many of these actions will be tied to geopolitical or national security concerns, not economic ones. This makes them harder to anticipate through traditional trade forecasting.
In addition, the Supreme Court decision on IEEPA tariffs, the future of USMCA, and enforcement of IMMEX reforms in Mexico will all affect trade flows across North America.
Companies with supply chains in these regions should be actively reviewing their legal exposure and operational readiness. Waiting for policy changes to finalize will leave businesses behind competitors who are already preparing.
How to Respond Now
Trade compliance should be treated as a forward-facing function, not just a back-office requirement. Companies can reduce exposure and improve flexibility by doing the following:
- Review customs entry data for errors in classification, value, and country of origin.
- Evaluate supplier ownership structures for exposure to restricted parties.
- Documents preparation for CF-28 and CF-29
- Sign up for ACE reports to monitor duty payments and bond saturation.
- File protests where appropriate to protect rights to duty refunds.
- Implement internal compliance reviews for transactions involving China and Mexico.
- Engage trade advisors with expertise in tariff mitigation and refund strategy.
There is little indication that CBP will relax enforcement in the near term. In fact, the tools being developed suggest the opposite. Trade compliance is now a matter of strategic risk management. Businesses that act early will have more options. Those that delay may find themselves reacting to audits, penalties, or lost shipments without the leverage to respond.
Ready to Reassess Your CBP Compliance Risk?
With CBP taking a more aggressive approach to enforcement, importers need to rethink how they manage compliance across classification, valuation, origin, and supply chain documentation. Small gaps in filings or documentation can now trigger audits, bond issues, or even penalties. If you haven’t reviewed your entries or supplier exposure recently, now is the time to act.
Our trade compliance experts can help you assess enforcement risk and identify where you may be vulnerable under the latest CBP scrutiny. Whether it’s tracking IEEPA refunds, reviewing bond sufficiency, or verifying origin claims, we’ll help you build a proactive plan.
Get in touch with a Dimerco specialist to evaluate your trade compliance program and ensure your supply chain is positioned for the year ahead. We’ll work with you to align your documentation, procedures, and systems with current enforcement trends and your operational goals.
