CBP Seeks Broad Expansion of Importer Supply Chain Disclosure Requirements

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that could materially expand the information importers of record must obtain, maintain, and potentially provide to the US government concerning the foreign parties, documents, technology, and production processes associated with imported merchandise.

Importers and other affected companies have until December 1, 2026, to submit comments on the potential requirements. Given the breadth of CBP’s questions and the potentially significant operational consequences for importers, companies should consider using the comment period to identify practical concerns and help shape any eventual proposed rule.

The ANPRM, titled Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility, implements a directive in Executive Order 14411, Strengthening Customs Enforcement, and seeks public input on a range of potential requirements designed principally to give CBP greater visibility into global supply chains and to detect customs fraud, including illegal transshipment and other efforts to evade US trade laws. See our prior publication on preparing for heightened customs enforcement.

Importantly, the ANPRM itself does not impose these new requirements. Rather, CBP is soliciting information that could inform a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking and, ultimately, final regulations. Nevertheless, the breadth of the questions presented—and the potential operational consequences for importers—make this an important development for companies with significant or complex international supply chains.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Importers can take the following steps to prepare and respond:

• Consider submitting comments by December 1. Companies may wish to address contemplated requirements that would create significant costs, confidentiality concerns, technological challenges, supplier difficulties, or disruptions to critical supply chains.
• Assess current supply chain visibility. Importers should inventory information currently available concerning manufacturers, producers, shippers, exporters, sellers, distributors, packagers, ultimate consignees, and other intermediaries and determine whether foreign suppliers can provide relevant export documentation.
• Identify potential data gaps and discrepancies. Companies should evaluate differences between foreign export data and US entry data, particularly regarding value, quantity, classification, and origin, and assess whether existing controls adequately explain and document those differences.
• Evaluate technology and supplier readiness. Potential requirements could necessitate changes to supplier relationships, contractual obligations, data systems, traceability technology, and Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) compliance.

FOREIGN EXPORT DOCUMENTATION COULD BECOME A CORE IMPORT RECORD

One potentially consequential proposal would require importers to provide CBP with documentation that foreign exporters are required to submit to foreign customs authorities before exporting merchandise to the United States.

CBP specifically identifies

• export declarations;
• commercial invoices;
• packing lists;
• certificates of origin;
• export licenses and permits; and
• transport documents, such as bills of lading and air waybills.

CBP is considering whether these documents should be submitted with an entry or entry summary, retained as part of the importer’s records, or provided only upon request. The ANPRM also asks whether submission should be randomized and whether enhanced documentation should apply to imports designated as presenting an unusually high or grave national security risk.

Importer Consideration

This proposal could effectively create a new documentary layer between the foreign export transaction and the US import entry. Importers that do not currently receive foreign export declarations or other export-side customs documents may need to modify supplier requirements and internal processes.

The proposal also raises a potential customs valuation issue. CBP expressly asks how it should address differences between the price reported to a foreign customs authority and the price relevant to US customs valuation. Differences are not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing—for example, different customs valuation methodologies, transactions, currencies, or regulatory requirements may produce legitimate differences—but they could become a focus of CBP scrutiny. Importers should be prepared to demonstrate why foreign export documentation and US entry documentation may legitimately differ.

CBP MAY MOVE BEYOND THE MID FOR SUPPLY CHAIN IDENTIFICATION

CBP is also considering replacing or supplementing the current Manufacturer/Shipper Identification Code (MID) regime. CBP characterizes the existing MID as potentially insufficient because it may not uniquely identify the relevant party, may not identify the party CBP actually wishes to investigate, and may not be available early enough in the import process.

CBP is asking whether importers should instead provide information identifying the manufacturer, producer, shipper, exporter, seller, distributor, packager, online marketplace, and potentially the ultimate recipient or destination party. CBP is also considering whether the full legal name, physical address, or other business identifier should be reported instead of or in addition to the current MID.

CBP also seeks comment on its ongoing voluntary Global Business Identifier (GBI) Test, which has been running since 2022. GBIs are issued by the private sector to identify various supply chain participants, and the test initially contemplated identifying the manufacturer, shipper, or seller.

The existing GBI Test permits use of identifiers including Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers, Global Location Numbers, Legal Entity Identifiers, and Altana IDs. CBP asks whether such identifiers should be required at entry or entry summary, whether additional identifiers should be accepted, and whether importers or brokers could feasibly obtain foreign tax and global business identifiers for manufacturers, shippers, and sellers.

CBP also asks whether entry filings should occur earlier to provide additional time to review supply chain information and determine admissibility before merchandise reaches the United States.

Importer Consideration

Companies should not assume that their existing commercial invoice and entry data contain sufficient information. A future rule could require importers to obtain and validate information from entities several tiers removed from the importer or seller, including parties with whom the importer has no direct contractual relationship.

Multinational companies should evaluate whether supplier master-data systems can map legal entities, locations, manufacturing facilities, and supply chain roles to persistent identifiers. This may be particularly relevant for companies that routinely source the same product through multiple manufacturers, trading companies, distributors, or logistics intermediaries.

The ANPRM also raises a potentially significant reasonable-care and data-verification issue by asking what consequences should apply where manufacturer, shipper, exporter, or other identifying information is inaccurate.

An earlier filing requirement could have meaningful consequences for importers as well as brokers, suppliers that traditionally provide documents only shortly before shipment, air and ocean freight operations, and transactions involving frequently changing participants. Companies should therefore consider whether their current document collection processes can support materially earlier data finalization and, if not, whether to submit comments regarding realistic data submission timelines.

TECHNOLOGY AND AI COULD BECOME PART OF IMPORTER COMPLIANCE

The ANPRM goes beyond conventional customs documentation. CBP is soliciting information about technology that can provide visibility into supply chains and production methods, including technology using artificial intelligence.

CBP specifically asks how importers currently use technology to identify supply chain participants, verify production and origin information, protect proprietary information, and integrate data with the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and Partner Government Agency systems. It also asks whether importers should bear responsibility for using technological tools to provide CBP with supply chain visibility. CBP is particularly interested in technology capable of tracing the origin of raw materials and addressing the “visibility gap” between immediate suppliers and upstream sources.

Importer Consideration

This signals a potential evolution in customs compliance from a principally document-based model toward a data-driven supply chain verification model. Companies with sophisticated traceability systems may ultimately have an advantage, while companies dependent upon fragmented supplier records could face higher compliance costs. Importers should also consider the implications for confidentiality, cybersecurity, trade secrets, and data governance if granular supply chain data becomes a requirement.

CTPAT COULD BECOME A VEHICLE FOR ENHANCED REQUIREMENTS

The ANPRM contemplates using CTPAT as a vehicle for enhanced supply chain security. CBP asks whether CTPAT partners should be required to use enhanced supply chain tracing technologies and whether companies that provide greater supply chain visibility should receive additional CTPAT benefits. It also asks whether the CTPAT Minimum Security Criteria should be expanded to include cybersecurity and data-integrity requirements.

CBP asks about potentially restricting CTPAT participants or their supply chain partners from using “covered logistics platforms” identified as national security risks, expressly referencing potentially foreign-controlled systems. CBP requests information about the costs of transitioning to secure alternatives, including capital expenditures, training, systems integration, and potential supply chain delays.

Importer Consideration

CTPAT participation could increasingly involve not merely physical supply chain security but heightened digital supply chain security. Companies participating in CTPAT should evaluate the logistics and data platforms used not only by the importer but also by relevant suppliers, carriers, freight forwarders, and other supply chain partners.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR IMPORTERS

Although no new compliance requirement is currently effective, importers can take steps now both to assess their readiness and to consider whether the contemplated requirements warrant comments to CBP.

Assess Data and Documentation Readiness

Companies should map the information currently available for significant products and suppliers, including relevant legal entities, manufacturers and production facilities, exporters, shippers, sellers, countries of export and origin, raw-material sources, and applicable entity identifiers. They should also determine whether foreign suppliers can provide export declarations, customs invoices, certificates of origin, export licenses, transport documents, and other records submitted to foreign authorities.

Importers should review whether existing customs procedures identify differences between foreign and US data concerning value, classification, origin, quantity, and identified parties. Where legitimate differences are common, companies should consider whether they can develop standardized explanations and supporting documentation.

Evaluate Supplier, Contractual, and Technology Implications

Companies should consider whether supplier agreements adequately address production of customs documentation, accuracy of supply chain information, audit rights, cooperation with CBP inquiries, retention of foreign customs records, manufacturing-site changes, subcontractor documentation, upstream sourcing information, and cybersecurity and data integrity.

Companies should also identify the platforms used by suppliers, freight forwarders, carriers, and other logistics providers to transmit shipping and customs information and assess whether existing systems could accommodate materially expanded or earlier data requirements. CTPAT participants should consider whether their existing security profiles could accommodate future technology, cybersecurity, data-integrity, and supply chain traceability requirements.

Consider Submitting Comments by December 1

This ANPRM presents a broad opportunity for importers to influence the architecture of any eventual rule. CBP includes 64 specific questions and expressly requests information regarding implementation costs, data availability, supplier lead times, technology limitations, small-business impacts, critical goods, and potential supply chain disruptions.

Companies considering comments should focus on specific operational facts and quantifiable costs rather than generalized objections. Depending on the company’s circumstances, potentially important topics could include risk-based alternatives to mandatory document submission for all imports, safe harbors for legitimate differences between foreign export and US import data, reasonable reliance standards for information obtained from foreign suppliers, sufficient implementation periods for systems and supplier changes, accommodations for critical or time-sensitive goods, protection of confidential commercial information and trade secrets, and clear allocation of responsibility among importers, brokers, carriers, exporters, and other supply chain participants.

CBP asks commenters to identify the specific ANPRM questions addressed and, when providing quantitative information, to provide sufficient detail to recreate their calculations. Relevant costs could include employee hours, supplier onboarding, software and ACE integration, translation, data storage, cybersecurity, training, customs broker and freight forwarder engagement, shipment delays, and potential effects on critical goods.

BOTTOM LINE

This ANPRM may serve as an indicator of the direction of US customs enforcement. Following Executive Order 14411, CBP is considering a shift toward greater visibility into the entire international supply chain, including foreign customs documentation, entity-level identifiers, upstream production information, digital traceability, and technology-enabled verification.

For importers, the key consideration is not an immediate new filing obligation but the possibility that existing customs compliance programs will not generate or preserve the information that a future rule could require. Companies with complex multinational supply chains should therefore begin assessing their data, documentation, contractual, technological, and CTPAT readiness now.

HOW WE CAN HELP

Companies also have an opportunity to help shape CBP’s approach before a proposed rule is developed. Comments are due December 1, 2026. We can assist companies in assessing the potential impact of the contemplated requirements, identifying issues appropriate for comment, and preparing submissions to CBP.