U.S. Customs and Border Protection is proposing future regulatory changes to grant the agency greater visibility into the supply chains of goods imported into the United States. Through the President’s June 3, 2026, Executive Order 14411 entitled “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” the agency is charged with remedying claimed “systemic inefficiencies, loopholes, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, and outdated processes” in connection with customs/import compliance. As part of the implementation of the Executive Order, the agency published on September 2, 2026, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the agency laid out proposals for implementing Section 3 of the Executive Order.
Section 3 of the Executive Order directs the establishment of heightened import disclosure requirements, including disclosure of certain foreign tax and global business identifiers, and detailed information about the supply chain and production methods of goods imported into the United States. Moreover, the Section directs the Secretary to take steps to mandate the submission of “any documentation or information that the foreign exporter was required to submit to the foreign customs administration prior to exporting to the United States.” The Executive Order also directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to leverage the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program to strengthen customs enforcement.
Against this background, CBP is requesting comments from interested parties for use in a potential rulemaking on a number of focus areas:
- Requiring foreign export documentation for imported goods;
- Expanding identification of manufacturers, producers, shippers, exporters, and other supply chain participants;
- Supplementing or replacing Manufacturer Identification Codes with Global Business Identifiers;
- Utilizing technology and artificial intelligence to identify supply chain trends; and
- Increasing Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program requirements.
A more detailed look into those focus areas are below.
Foreign Export Documentation
CBP is considering requiring importers to submit foreign export documentation that has been filed with foreign customs authorities for goods destined for the United States.
Such documentation could include:
- Export declarations made by the foreign exporter to the foreign customs authority (possibly showing declared value, classification, and quantity);
- Commercial invoices showing the transaction value declared to the foreign customs authority;
- Packing lists to verify the contents, weight, and packaging of the shipment;
- Certificates of origin submitted to the foreign customs authority substantiating the origin of the goods;
- Export licenses or permits required for the export of controlled, restricted, or dual-use goods; and
- Transport documents (e.g., bill of lading or air waybill) that were required as part of the export manifest filing with the foreign customs authority.
CBP believes that these documents can assist with verifying the accuracy of entry information, identifying disparities between foreign export and U.S. import data, and detecting possible customs violations, such as undervaluation, dual invoicing, misclassification, or declaration of the wrong country of origin.
Requiring foreign export documentation to become part of the U.S. import documentation for submission at the time of entry raises a number of concerns for U.S. importers. Importantly, it is unclear on what basis the foreign exporter would share its export documentation with the U.S. importer unless there is at least a contractual obligation to do so. Even if such an obligation were part of the negotiations between the foreign exporter and the U.S. importer, it is unclear whether the exporter would or legally could comply with such contractual obligation depending on the privacy or data protection requirements the exporter may be subject to in its home country. If, ultimately, U.S. importers are required to submit foreign export documentation as part of their import documentation, compliance with such mandate will require close cooperation of the foreign exporter.
Supply Chain Participants Involved in Goods Imported to the United States
CBP is keen to replace the Manufacturer Identification Code (MID). The MID is derived from the name and address of the manufacturer or shipper, as specified on the commercial invoice, and consists of an alpha-numerical code constructed pursuant to instructions specified by CBP. The agency is concerned that the MID provides limited identifying information and does not always identify the actual party that may be of interest to CBP for enforcement purposes. In addition, the MID is not always available to CBP early enough in the entry process to be useful.
In the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), the agency expressed an interest to replace or supplement the MID. CBP specifically mentions Global Business Identifiers (GBIs) as a possible replacement for MIDs. A GBI is a unique identifier issued by the private sector to help companies map and trace their supply chains. CBP is currently conducting a pilot program to test whether GBIs can replace or supplement the MID. The agency believes that GBIs provide greater visibility into business ownership, location, and supply chain roles, which can help the agency identify parties involved in the export of goods imported to the United States. The GBIs being considered by the agency are the following:
- The Legal Entity Identifier—owned and managed by the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation;
- The Global Location Number—owned and managed by GS1; and
- The Data Universal Numbering System—owned and managed by Dun & Bradstreet.
Technology for Supply Chain Traceability
CBP is exploring the use of AI and digital traceability tools that improve supply chain visibility and combat transshipment. The agency believes that the digital platforms and data-sharing technologies that supply chain partners and importers currently use could also support CBP’s efforts to improve its supply chain mapping and visibility. The agency is also looking into risks associated with data quality, privacy, security, and feasibility of implementing such technologies.
Increasing CTPAT Requirements
In the ANPRM, CBP states that it is considering strengthening the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program as part of its broader supply chain visibility initiative. In particular, the agency is evaluating whether the minimal security criteria should be expanded to include requirements for cybersecurity and data integrity, as well as a prohibition on the use of logistics platforms identified as a security risk that aggregate global shipping, cargo, and customs information. CBP is also considering whether CTPAT members should be obligated to make their supply chain tracing technology visible to CBP.
Public Comment Period
CBP is seeking public comments on all matters raised in the ANPRM before deciding how to proceed with a formal rulemaking. Specifically, the ANPRM contains 64 questions, through which the agency intends to collect feedback on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of the proposed measures. CBP specifically encourages commenters to provide data-driven responses, describe current industry practices and technologies, and identify implementation challenges, compliance burdens, and potential alternatives. Comments on the ANPRM are due by December 1, 2026.
In this dynamic regulatory landscape, Cassidy Levy Kent’s team of attorneys, licensed customs brokers, compliance experts, economists, and trade specialists stand ready to assist companies that are interested in shaping CBP’s impending regulatory changes through comments. As companies navigate these evolving rules, thoughtful planning and careful evaluation of entry processes will be essential for long-term success.