Executive Summary
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) has provided comprehensive recommendations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection addressing operational and procedural challenges arising from the suspension of commercial de minimis entries. These recommendations, approved at COAC’s September meeting prior to anticipated reorganization, propose system enhancements, regulatory clarifications, and procedural improvements aimed at facilitating compliant trade while maintaining effective enforcement. Understanding these recommendations provides insight into likely future CBP policy directions and enables stakeholders to prepare for evolving customs procedures.
COAC De Minimis Recommendations: Shaping Future Customs Procedures and Trade Facilitation
(COAC最低限度建议：塑造未来海关程序与贸易便利化)
1 · Context and Background
The elimination of de minimis treatment for commercial entries has created operational challenges requiring systematic policy and procedural responses from CBP and the trade community.
De Minimis Policy Evolution
Historical Framework: The de minimis exemption historically allowed duty-free, informal entry of articles valued at $800 or less imported by one person in one day. This threshold, among the highest globally, facilitated e-commerce growth while reducing administrative burden on both importers and CBP for low-value transactions.
Progressive Suspension: The Trump administration implemented de minimis elimination in phases:
Initial China/Hong Kong Suspension: Effective May 2, 2025, de minimis treatment was eliminated for packages from China and Hong Kong, which the administration identified as accounting for the majority of de minimis shipments to the United States. This targeted approach addressed specific concerns about Chinese e-commerce platforms while maintaining treatment for other origins.
Universal Suspension: Subsequently, Executive Order expanded suspension to all countries effective August 29, 2025, eliminating commercial de minimis entries universally. This comprehensive approach addressed concerns about transshipment avoidance and created uniform treatment across all origins.
COAC Role and Function
Advisory Committee Structure: The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee serves as formal mechanism for CBP to obtain private sector input on operational, procedural, and systemic customs issues. COAC comprises representatives from various trade sectors providing diverse perspectives on customs modernization and trade facilitation.
Recommendation Process: COAC develops recommendations through subcommittee work, full committee deliberation, and formal approval processes. Recommendations reflect consensus industry perspectives informed by operational experience and technical expertise.
September Meeting Context: The September meeting occurred prior to anticipated COAC reorganization, creating opportunity for comprehensive assessment of de minimis suspension impacts and development of recommendations addressing immediate challenges and longer-term procedural needs.
2 · ACE System Enhancement Recommendations
COAC’s recommendations regarding Automated Commercial Environment improvements address technical constraints limiting efficient processing of increased entry volumes following de minimis suspension.
Entry Line Capacity Expansion
Current Limitations: ACE currently limits the number of lines per entry and file size for electronic transmission. These constraints, appropriate when system was designed, prove inadequate for processing shipments previously handled under de minimis procedures that now require formal entry.
Recommended Enhancement: COAC recommends CBP expand ACE capacity to accommodate increased line items per entry, larger file sizes for electronic transmission, and efficient processing of entries with numerous SKUs.
Operational Impact: Enhanced capacity would enable efficient processing of consolidated shipments, e-commerce orders with multiple items, and other situations where numerous line items appear on single entry, reducing need for artificial entry splitting and associated inefficiencies.
Statement Entry Limitations
Current Constraint: ACE currently limits Automated Clearing House (ACH) statements to 2,000 entries, constraining high-volume importers who must manage multiple statements when exceeding this threshold.
Recommended Modification: COAC recommends increasing the entry limitation on ACH statements beyond current 2,000 entry threshold, enabling high-volume importers to consolidate entries more efficiently.
Efficiency Benefits: Expanded statement capacity would reduce administrative burden, improve payment processing efficiency, simplify reconciliation processes, and enable better cash flow management for high-volume importers.
Implementation Considerations
Technical Requirements: System enhancements require substantial technical development including database capacity expansion, transmission protocol modifications, user interface updates, and testing to ensure system stability and performance.
Timeline Expectations: While COAC recommendations identify necessary improvements, actual implementation timelines depend on CBP resource availability, technical complexity, competing priorities, and testing requirements ensuring system reliability.
3 · Postal Import Jurisdiction and Oversight
COAC recommendations address significant gaps in CBP’s authority over low-value postal imports that create inequitable treatment and enforcement challenges.
Current Jurisdictional Limitations
Postal Import Treatment: Low-value imports entering through international postal channels currently receive different treatment than similar shipments through commercial carriers:
Entry Requirement Differences: Postal shipments often avoid formal entry requirements applicable to commercial shipments, receive simplified documentation and processing, and face less stringent enforcement of regulatory requirements.
PGA Oversight Gaps: Partner Government Agency regulated products entering through postal channels may escape proper oversight, creating public health, safety, and regulatory compliance risks.
Accountability Limitations: Postal imports often lack clear importer of record identification and responsibility, limiting CBP’s ability to enforce compliance and pursue violations.
Recommended Authority Expansion
Jurisdictional Enhancement: COAC recommends CBP pursue authority to exercise comprehensive jurisdiction over postal low-value imports, enabling application of entry requirements comparable to non-postal shipments, accurate accounting and oversight of PGA-regulated goods, and importer of record obligations ensuring accountability.
Legislative Pathway: Achieving expanded postal jurisdiction likely requires legislative action granting CBP necessary authority and potentially modifying international postal agreements and protocols.
Enforcement and Compliance Benefits
Level Playing Field: Expanded postal jurisdiction would create more equitable treatment between postal and commercial channels, reduce incentives for evasion through postal routing, and improve overall compliance and enforcement effectiveness.
Public Protection: Enhanced oversight of postal imports better protects against unsafe products, counterfeit goods, prohibited items, and other enforcement concerns that postal channel limitations currently complicate.
4 · Postal Procedure Guidance and Clarification
Beyond jurisdictional authority, COAC recommends CBP provide clear guidance on postal import procedures and ineligible goods.
Eligibility Clarification
Guidance Need: Current ambiguity about which goods may or may not enter through low-value postal procedures creates confusion and inconsistent treatment.
Recommended Guidance: COAC recommends CBP publish comprehensive guidance documents clarifying goods ineligible for import using low-value postal procedures, explaining rationale for ineligibility determinations, and providing examples illustrating application of standards.
Enforcement Support: Clear guidance enables better compliance by postal services and shippers, supports consistent enforcement by CBP, and reduces disputes about appropriate entry channels.
Procedural Standardization
Cross-Modal Consistency: To extent possible, procedures for goods entering through postal channels should align with procedures for similar goods entering through commercial channels, creating consistency and reducing confusion.
Documentation Requirements: Clear specification of required documentation for postal imports, information that must be provided, and formats acceptable for submission would improve compliance and processing efficiency.
5 · Duty-Free Return Provisions Modernization
COAC recommendations address outdated regulations regarding duty-free return of goods previously exported from the United States, proposing modernization aligned with Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act.
HTSUS 9801.00.10 Expansion
Current Limitation: Existing regulations limit duty-free return eligibility under HTSUS 9801.00.10, creating unnecessary duty liability for legitimately returned American goods.
TFTEA Requirement: Section 904 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act requires CBP issue regulations expanding eligibility under HTSUS 9801.00.10 to include foreign goods returned with value under $2,500.
Recommended Implementation: COAC recommends CBP fulfill this statutory requirement by issuing appropriate regulations expanding duty-free return eligibility as Congress mandated, aligning CBP procedures with legislative intent.
Documentation Simplification
Current Requirements: Existing regulations impose documentation requirements for duty-free returns that may be overly burdensome for lower-value returns.
Recommended Modifications: COAC recommends CBP modify regulations and guidance to clarify that claims for duty-free status for returning goods valued under $2,500 do not require proof of original entry into the United States, recognizing practical difficulties in maintaining such documentation.
Additionally, COAC recommends clarifying that proof of export may be demonstrated through various commercial documents including commercial invoices, airway bills, waybills, or bills of lading, electronic export information or filing exemption documentation, copies of import declarations into foreign countries, or similar documentation showing previous U.S. export.
Practical Benefits: These clarifications reduce documentation burden on legitimate returns, facilitate duty-free treatment for qualified goods, and align requirements with practical business realities while maintaining adequate oversight and preventing abuse.
6 · Informal Entry Payment Modernization
COAC recommendations address outdated payment mechanisms for informal entries, proposing modernization aligned with contemporary electronic payment capabilities.
Current Payment Limitations
Check Requirement: Current procedures often require payment by check for informal entry duties, taxes, and fees, creating delays and administrative burden in an era where electronic payments dominate commercial transactions.
Bonding Requirements: Even for small-value informal entries, current procedures may require bonds creating disproportionate cost and complexity relative to transaction value.
Recommended Online Payment
Pay.gov Integration: COAC recommends CBP allow importers the option to pay estimated duties, taxes, and fees online through Pay.gov rather than by check before time of presentation without requiring a bond.
Benefits: Online payment would provide faster processing and release, reduced administrative burden, improved cash flow management, and better alignment with modern business practices.
Risk Management: For low-value informal entries, requiring bonds creates disproportionate burden. Allowing payment without bonds for appropriate circumstances balances facilitation with revenue protection.
Implementation Considerations
System Development: Implementing online payment for informal entries requires Pay.gov integration with entry systems, real-time payment confirmation, and automated release triggers upon payment confirmation.
Pilot Programs: CBP might consider phased implementation through pilot programs at specific ports or for specific entry types, enabling refinement before broader rollout.
7 · Gift Import Clarification
COAC recommends CBP provide clear guidance regarding bona fide gift treatment under existing regulations.
Current Ambiguity
Regulatory Framework: 19 CFR 10.152 provides for duty-free treatment of bona fide gifts, but interpretation of what constitutes qualifying gift generates confusion and inconsistent application.
Enforcement Challenges: Without clear guidance, CBP officers, importers, and carriers struggle to apply gift provisions consistently, creating potential for improper claims or denial of legitimate gift treatment.
Recommended Guidance
Definitional Clarity: COAC recommends CBP issue clear guidance defining what does and does not constitute bona fide gift under regulations, providing examples illustrating application of standards, and explaining documentation requirements supporting gift claims.
Cross-Modal Application: Guidance should address gift clearance mechanisms across all transportation modes including postal, ensuring consistent treatment regardless of entry channel.
Practical Application: Clear guidance enables better compliance decisions, reduces disputes and delays, and ensures appropriate application of gift provisions without facilitating abuse.
8 · Business Model Documentation Requirements
COAC recommendations address emerging business models requiring procedural clarity about manifest and entry data requirements.
B2B2C Import Models
Business Structure: Business-to-business-to-consumer models involve complex relationships where goods ship from foreign supplier to U.S. business entity for distribution to individual consumers. These arrangements create ambiguity about proper documentation and party identification.
Documentation Challenges: Current requirements designed for traditional import models don’t clearly address B2B2C structures, creating confusion about proper entry procedures, party identification, and compliance responsibilities.
Recommended Guidance
Data Requirement Clarification: COAC recommends CBP provide comprehensive guidance for manifest and entry data requirements specifically addressing B2B2C imports, clarifying which entities must be identified and in what capacities, and explaining compliance responsibilities throughout the supply chain.
Best Practices: Guidance should include examples and best practices illustrating proper documentation for various B2B2C structures and scenarios.
9 · Party Identification Standardization
COAC recommends CBP address confusion arising from inconsistent party terminology in guidance and regulations.
Terminology Challenges
“Consignee” Ambiguity: The term “consignee” carries multiple meanings in international trade including the party receiving physical possession, the party with financial responsibility, the party named on transport documents, and various other interpretations creating confusion.
Inconsistent Usage: CBP guidance and regulations sometimes use “consignee” without clearly specifying which meaning applies, creating ambiguity about compliance requirements.
Recommended Standardization
Clear Definitions: COAC recommends CBP clearly define each required party type including deliver-to party, shipper, sold-to party, importer of record, and any other relevant parties, providing precise definitions for each.
Terminology Avoidance: COAC specifically recommends CBP refrain from using the term “consignee” in guidance documents, instead using precise, defined party type designations eliminating ambiguity.
Consistent Application: Once party types are clearly defined, CBP should use terminology consistently across all guidance documents, regulations, and systems.
Implementation Benefits
Reduced Confusion: Clear, consistent party identification reduces compliance errors, facilitates accurate data submission, improves CBP targeting and enforcement, and eliminates disputes arising from terminology ambiguity.
10 · Implementation Outlook and Strategic Considerations
Understanding likely CBP responses to COAC recommendations helps stakeholders prepare for evolving procedures.
Recommendation Consideration Process
CBP Review: CBP will review COAC recommendations considering operational feasibility, resource requirements, legal authority, and stakeholder impact. Not all recommendations may be implemented, and implementation approaches may differ from specific COAC proposals.
Priority Setting: CBP must prioritize among numerous competing demands on limited resources. Recommendations addressing critical operational needs or offering substantial benefits relative to implementation costs may receive higher priority.
Timeline Variability: Different recommendations face different implementation timelines. Simple guidance documents may be developed relatively quickly, while major system enhancements or regulatory changes require extended timeframes.
Stakeholder Preparation
Monitoring Developments: Trade community stakeholders should monitor CBP announcements and Federal Register publications for implementation of COAC recommendations or alternative approaches addressing similar issues.
Proactive Adaptation: Even before formal implementation, understanding likely policy directions enables proactive operational adjustments, system preparation, and compliance program updates.
Engagement Opportunities: When CBP seeks public comment on proposed implementations, stakeholders should participate providing operational perspectives and suggesting refinements ensuring practical, effective outcomes.
Long-Term Procedural Evolution
Modernization Trajectory: COAC recommendations reflect broader trajectory toward customs procedure modernization including electronic processing and payment, simplified procedures for low-risk transactions, clear guidance supporting compliance, and party accountability and transparency.
Continued Adaptation: As trade patterns, business models, and technology continue evolving, customs procedures must adapt correspondingly. Ongoing dialogue between CBP and trade community through COAC and other channels supports this necessary evolution.
11 · Conclusion: Collaborative Approach to Customs Modernization
COAC’s Valuable Role
Industry-Government Partnership: COAC exemplifies productive partnership between government and private sector, with industry expertise informing policy development, operational experience identifying practical challenges, and collaborative problem-solving developing workable solutions.
Comprehensive Assessment: The September recommendations demonstrate thorough assessment of de minimis suspension impacts, identifying system constraints, procedural gaps, and guidance needs requiring attention.
Implementation Path Forward
Incremental Progress: CBP cannot implement all recommendations simultaneously. Progress will occur incrementally as resources permit and priorities dictate. Understanding this reality helps set appropriate expectations while maintaining focus on ultimate objectives.
Continued Engagement: Effective implementation requires continued dialogue between CBP and stakeholders, feedback on initial implementations, and willingness to refine approaches based on operational experience.
Strategic Positioning
Preparing for Change: Organizations affected by de minimis suspension and related procedural changes should monitor CBP implementation of COAC recommendations, prepare systems and processes for anticipated changes, train staff on evolving requirements, and maintain flexibility to adapt as procedures develop.
Operational Excellence: Regardless of specific procedural details, success requires commitment to accurate classification and valuation, complete and timely documentation, transparent supply chain practices, and responsive adaptation to changing requirements.
The COAC recommendations regarding de minimis suspension provide valuable roadmap for customs procedure evolution addressing operational challenges while supporting legitimate trade. While specific implementation approaches and timelines remain to be determined, the recommendations identify clear needs and potential solutions warranting attention and action. Organizations engaged in international trade should understand these recommendations, prepare for likely implementations, and participate constructively in ongoing dialogue shaping the future of U.S. customs procedures.
This analysis reflects COAC recommendations as approved at the September meeting and publicly available information. Actual CBP implementation decisions, approaches, and timelines may vary from recommendations. Organizations affected by these issues should monitor official CBP announcements and consult with customs compliance professionals regarding specific implications for their operations and appropriate strategic responses.
