CBP Considers Deeper Supply Chain Disclosures; Comments Due December 1, 2026

Key Takeaways

• What Happened: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that could reshape the information importers must collect, verify, and provide for goods entering the United States. CBP is considering requirements for identifying supply chain parties and implementing technology-enabled traceability. Although CBP has not yet proposed regulatory text, the notice is another clear example of the expanding universe of deeper supply chain visibility requirements, which pose special challenges for complex articles.
• Who’s Impacted: Importers of record face the most direct potential obligations, but the effects could extend to customs brokers, carriers, foreign exporters, manufacturers and producers, logistics providers, and upstream suppliers.
• What Should They Consider Doing in Response: Companies should evaluate the potential impacts of CBP’s proposed measures, including whether they can identify the parties and production steps behind imported products beyond their direct suppliers. Companies should also consider commenting on feasibility, cost, timing, phase-in options, exemptions, and data-security safeguards.
• By When Should They Act: Comments are expected to be due December 1, 2026. Companies that may comment should begin collecting operational data, implementation timelines, and cost estimates now.

CBP Is Considering a Broader Import Data Regime

The ANPRM, Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility, responds to Executive Order 14411, Strengthening Customs Enforcement. CBP has not proposed regulatory text. Instead, the agency asks 64 questions that may shape a later proposed rule. CBP seeks information on current business practices, available technology, compliance costs, implementation timelines, and potential impacts on companies and their customers.

CBP’s questions address several potential changes, including:

• Requiring importers to submit or retain documents that exporters provide to foreign customs authorities, including export declarations, commercial invoices, packing lists, certificates of origin, export licenses or permits, and transport documents.
• Expanding the parties and intermediaries that importers may need to identify or disclose, potentially including manufacturers or producers, shippers, exporters, sellers, distributors, and packagers.
• Considering how traceability technologies, artificial intelligence, unique identifiers, and tamper-proof credentials could verify origin, production methods, and the movement of goods.

The questions leave open whether CBP would apply future requirements to all imports or only selected products, countries, entry types, transportation modes, or risk categories.

Visibility Expectations Continue to Expand Beyond First-Tier Suppliers

CBP’s questions indicate a continued focus on upstream suppliers – a supply chain information challenge that we see across product regulatory and supply chain sustainability obligations. CBP asks about identifying the actual manufacturer or producer, obtaining product-level information about supply chains and production methods, and using technology to verify raw material origin and bridge the “visibility gap” between suppliers and raw material sources.

If CBP ultimately adopts requirements along these lines, importers may need information from companies with which they have no direct contract. A first-tier supplier may not possess, control, or readily share data concerning upstream manufacturers, component suppliers, raw material sources, or foreign customs filings. Importers may therefore need new contractual rights, supplier onboarding processes, data standards, audit procedures, and escalation protocols. While some US importers may have developed these types of mechanisms to comply with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) or supply chain laws in other jurisdictions, CBP’s proposed requirements would require many more companies to invest in supply chain documentation collection and management processes.

Operational and Confidentiality Concerns

The ANPRM presents practical questions that companies can help CBP answer before the agency drafts a proposed rule. Importers should consider whether their systems can collect the contemplated data early enough for pre-arrival submission or entry, whether smaller suppliers can obtain and maintain reliable identifiers, and whether foreign laws, language barriers, or business practices restrict access to export documents.

Comments may also address how CBP should protect confidential business information. Deeper-tier data can reveal supplier identities, sourcing strategies, and logistics arrangements. CBP specifically requests input on confidentiality concerns, data privacy and security practices, and protection of proprietary information. Companies should evaluate who would transmit the information, who could access it, how CBP would verify it, and what protections should apply when multiple supply chain actors submit overlapping or inconsistent data.

Expected Comment Deadline: December 1, 2026

The public-inspection notice is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on September 2, 2026, and provides a 90-day comment period. That schedule produces a December 1, 2026, deadline. Because the public-inspection copy still contains a placeholder for the deadline, commenters should confirm the date in the published notice. Comments should identify docket number USCBP-2026-1058 and must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Next Steps

Companies should consider identifying potential system changes, resource requirements, lead times, and costs that broader disclosure requirements could create, and prepare comments supported by concrete examples, proposed implementation timelines, and quantitative cost data. CBP specifically requests that commenters provide sufficient information to enable CBP to recreate the calculations underlying all numerical and quantitative responses.

The ANPRM gives importers an early opportunity to influence requirements that could affect sourcing and contracting for imported products. Companies should use the comment period to explain where deeper visibility is feasible, where upstream data gaps persist, and which safeguards, exemptions, or phase-in measures would make a future rule workable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.