CBP Seeks Input on Potential New Import Documentation and Supply Chain Transparency Requirements

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on potential changes to customs regulations intended to increase visibility into the supply chains of goods imported into the United States. The initiative is aimed at strengthening customs enforcement, identifying illegal transshipment, and improving CBP’s ability to verify the origin and movement of imported merchandise.

A significant proposal would require importers to obtain and retain foreign export documentation associated with imported goods. CBP is seeking feedback on whether importers should be required to maintain records such as foreign export declarations, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, export licenses, packing lists, and transportation documents that have been submitted to foreign customs authorities.

CBP is also evaluating the following measures to enhance supply chain transparency:

• expanded identification of supply chain partners
• greater use of global business identifiers and foreign tax identifiers
• artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled supply chain traceability tools
• data elements related to manufacturers, exporters, and sellers
• potential changes to filing timelines and entry requirements
• enhancements to trusted customs trade programs and supply chain security initiatives

If adopted, these requirements could significantly expand the information that importers must collect, maintain, and provide to CBP.

Many importers do not have routine access to foreign export filings or other records generated by overseas suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, or logistics providers. These proposed requirements may present practical, contractual, and legal challenges for companies operating complex global supply chains.

The ANPRM also signals CBP’s focus on supply chain visibility as a tool for enforcing customs and other trade laws. Companies may face greater scrutiny regarding the accuracy of country-of-origin declarations, sourcing information, and supporting documentation provided with customs entry filings.

Importers may wish to evaluate:

• Whether existing supplier agreements provide access to foreign export documentation. Legal and procurement teams can review a sample of supplier, manufacturer, distributor, customs broker, freight forwarder, and logistics agreements to determine whether they require the counterparty to provide foreign export declarations, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, export licenses, packing lists, and transportation records upon request. The review should also identify response deadlines, document-retention obligations, audit or verification rights, confidentiality and data-transfer restrictions, and whether the obligation flows down to upstream suppliers.
• Availability and reliability of upstream supply chain data. Compliance teams can map the parties involved in selected high-risk or high-volume import transactions and identify who creates, holds, and can release each record. Examples include foreign manufacturer, exporter of record, seller, trading company, consolidator, freight forwarder, and customs broker. Companies can then test a sample of entries to determine whether supplier names and addresses, manufacturing locations, foreign tax or business identifiers, product descriptions, values, quantities, origin information, and shipment references are complete, consistent, and traceable across documents.
• Recordkeeping and document retention processes. Companies can inventory where import, sourcing, logistics, and foreign export records (e.g., broker portals, enterprise resource planning systems, transportation systems, shared drives, email, supplier platforms) are stored. They can also confirm who owns the records, how long they are retained, whether foreign-language documents can be searched and translated, whether records are linked to the applicable entry number or purchase order, and whether a complete file can be retrieved promptly for a sample transaction.
• Country-of-origin verification. Compliance and legal teams can document the questions used to support origin determinations and evidence retained for each product category. Examples include the identity and location of the manufacturer, bills of materials, production steps, component origins, tariff classification, applicable origin rule, supplier origin certifications, and any prior rulings. Companies can also compare origin data across purchase orders, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, foreign export filings, shipping records, and US entry data, then establish an escalation process for discrepancies or unsupported supplier statements.
• Technology systems, including AI, used to maintain import and sourcing data. Information technology (IT) and compliance teams can identify the systems that contain supplier, manufacturer, seller, origin, shipment, and entry data. They can then determine whether those records can be connected through common fields including purchase-order number, shipment number, part number, supplier identifier, or entry number. They can flag missing fields, duplicate or inconsistent party names, access limitations, and records kept only in unstructured email or PDFs. Before using automated or AI-enabled tools, companies should define validation checks, human review, access controls, and a process for correcting inaccurate or incomplete data.
• Potential costs associated with additional documentation and compliance requirements. Finance, procurement, legal, compliance, and IT teams can begin identifying likely cost categories, including contract amendments, supplier onboarding, broker or logistics-provider fees, document translation, data subscriptions, system integration, storage, cybersecurity controls, training, transaction-level review, discrepancy resolution, and audit support. Companies may also estimate the operational effect by testing how much effort is required to obtain and validate a complete document package for representative suppliers, products, countries, and trade lanes.

Companies that rely on global sourcing networks, manufacturers, multiple tiers of suppliers, or cross-border distribution arrangements are urged to provide comments regarding the implementation challenges and compliance burdens that they may encounter.

Next Steps

CBP is seeking industry feedback and has requested responses regarding documentation requirements, supply chain visibility, compliance costs, and operational feasibility. Comments must be submitted by December 1, 2026.

Although no specific regulatory requirements have yet been proposed, the ANPRM seems to indicate that CBP is considering expanded importer accountability and supply chain transparency. Importers should consider reviewing their current sourcing, recordkeeping, and trade compliance programs and determine whether they can obtain the documentation identified in the ANPRM and data that resides outside of their direct control.

BRG will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as CBP advances the rulemaking process.