On September 2, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), titled “Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility.” The notice is a strong signal of how CBP is contemplating implementing portions of President Trump’s June 2026 Executive Order on Strengthening Customs Enforcement. Our Client Advisory on June 8 lays out the new plan to combat illicit trade set forth in the EO.
Importantly, CBP is seeking industry input through 64 detailed questions that will inform a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments are due by December 1. In a communication sent this morning, CBP explained it is seeking to balance enforcement priorities with commercial realities, suggesting it seeks to examine what is feasible without disrupting legitimate trade and unnecessarily burdening businesses.
CBP wants substantially greater insight into who makes imported goods, how they are produced, how they move through the supply chain, and what information foreign exporters provide to their own governments. If these concepts ultimately become regulations, all importers could face significantly expanded disclosure, recordkeeping, and supply-chain due diligence obligations.
The practical effect could extend well beyond customs departments, and CBP has not yet articulated consequences of noncompliance. Procurement, sourcing, logistics, tax, IT, cybersecurity, legal, and supplier-management functions may all become increasingly important to customs compliance. Most significantly, the proposals suggest a continued evolution from an entry-focused compliance model toward one based on end-to-end supply-chain visibility. Importers should evaluate their current capabilities and use this comment opportunity to help shape requirements that could define U.S. customs compliance for the future.
Below we provide a summary of areas where CBP is seeking input to better understand the implications of implementation of overarching enforcement EO.
Areas Where CBP is Seeking Input
1. Submission of Foreign Export Documentation
CBP is considering a requirement that importers obtain and potentially submit to the agency documents filed with foreign customs authorities, including export declarations, commercial invoices, packing lists, certificates of origin, export licenses and permits, and transportation documents. CBP asks whether these records should be submitted with every import, retained as part of the importer’s customs records, or requested on a randomized basis.
The implications could be significant. Many U.S. importers currently do not routinely receive the actual export declarations filed by their suppliers, freight forwarders, trading companies, or other parties with foreign customs authorities. Importers therefore may need to establish new contractual requirements and procedures to obtain these documents.
Of note, certain categories of merchandise or imports from certain countries may be designated as posing a “high or grave risk to the national security of the United States.” Those categories of merchandise may face the heightened documentation requirements.
This raises an important compliance issue: information submitted to another country’s customs authority may not necessarily correspond directly with information properly reported to CBP. Valuation rules, tariff classifications, and country of origin determinations may vary between countries and cause those imports to face additional scrutiny upon importation into the United States.
2. Expanded Identification of Supply Chain Participants
CBP is considering requiring importers to disclose substantially more information regarding parties involved in the movement, manufacture, and sale of imported merchandise. It is reevaluating the effectiveness of using the Manufacturer Identification (MID) code that has been the standard for imports. Instead, it may rely upon foreign tax identifiers or Global Business Identifiers, such as DUNS numbers, Global Location Numbers, Altana ID, Legal Entity Identifiers, and potentially other identifiers.
For many importers, this could mean providing information beyond the current manufacturer, shipper, seller, and importer data reported at entry. It is also possible that foreign manufacturers do not yet have an identifier recognized by CBP, which could prevent or delay imports from those manufacturers if additional documentation or verification is required.
3. Supply Chain Traceability Information
CBP seeks comments concerning technologies capable of tracing raw materials, assigning unique entity identifiers, creating tamper-resistant credentials documenting movement of goods, and potentially certifying information such as country of origin. CBP also asks how these technologies could integrate with the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”).
These questions suggest CBP is looking beyond traditional entry documentation toward a model in which supply-chain information may be digitally traceable and capable of being evaluated before merchandise reaches the U.S. border.
Potential implications include: mapping upstream suppliers, identifying production stages, providing evidence of origin, or demonstrating product traceability through the manufacturing process.
4. Expanding CTPAT Responsibilities and Benefits
The notice indicates CBP is examining ways to leverage the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program to strengthen customs enforcement and supply-chain transparency.
CBP asks whether CTPAT partners should be required to use enhanced supply-chain tracing technology and potentially make that technology or the resulting visibility available to CBP. It also asks whether CTPAT Minimum Security Criteria should be expanded to address cybersecurity and data integrity, including restrictions on logistics platforms considered national-security risks. CBP specifically identifies LOGINK and other foreign-controlled logistics systems as examples of platforms that could potentially be restricted.
At the same time, CBP is considering whether companies providing CBP with enhanced supply-chain visibility should receive additional CTPAT benefits. This is an opportunity for those who are already in the CTPAT program to advocate for additional benefits from compliance.
5. Earlier Entry Filing May Be on the Table
CBP also asks whether import entries should be filed earlier so that the agency has additional time to evaluate supply-chain documentation and make admissibility decisions before arrival.
An earlier filing requirement could have significant operational implications for importers, customs brokers, freight forwarders, carriers, and foreign suppliers. Companies responding to the ANPRM should consider documenting when accurate commercial and supply-chain information becomes available during their shipping process and the consequences of requiring that information earlier.
The ANPRM does not itself impose new obligations. It does, however, provide a detailed roadmap of the information CBP may seek through a subsequent proposed rule, including foreign export records, additional participant and product identifiers, earlier filing, technology-enabled traceability, and expanded CTPAT criteria. Importers should use the comment period to weigh-in on those areas that are most critical to their operations and offer concrete examples and quantitative support, where applicable.
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.
[View Source]
