New CPSC eFiling Rule for Imported Consumer Products — Effective July 8, 2026 - Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) has long required importers of products that are subject to a consumer product safety rule, ban, standard or regulation to certify that their product complies with the applicable product safety rule. For general-use products (i.e., non-children’s products), the compliance certification must be based on a test of the product or a reasonable testing program[1] – 3rd party accredited lab testing is not required. For children’s products, the certification must be based on testing by a CPSC-accredited 3rd party lab. These certifications must be created in advance of the entry of merchandise into the United States and be made available upon request when the product or shipment is presented for inspection.
The CPSC has issued a final rule revising the certificate of compliance requirements under 16 C.F.R. Part 1110. This new rule implements a mandatory electronic filing of compliance certification data at the time of entry for CPSC-regulated consumer products that are imported into the U.S. For most merchandise, the rule applies to goods imported on or after July 8, 2026. For products entered from a Foreign Trade Zone (“FTZ”) for consumption or warehousing, the compliance date is January 8, 2027.
• Electronic Filing Required at Time of Entry – Importers of CPSC-regulated consumer products must eFile compliance certification data through CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) at the time of entry. Importers must provide their customs brokers with the compliance certification data prior to entry in order to avoid clearance delays.
• The importer is responsible for issuing the compliance certification
• Two eFiling options are available. Importers may use either:
o a Full PGA (“Parter Government Agency”) Message Set, under which all certificate data elements are submitted through ACE; or
o a Reference PGA Message Set, under which certificate data is entered in CPSC’s Product Registry and a unique reference ID is transmitted through ACE. This is useful for importers who repeatedly import goods covered by the same product certificates.[2]
• Required data elements include product identification, applicable CPSC rules, the certifier’s contact information, the records custodian, manufacturing date and location, testing date and location, and an attestation of compliance. Product identification must include at least one unique identifier, such as a GTIN, model number, serial number, SKU, UPC, registered number, or alternate identifier, along with a description sufficient to match the product to the certificate.
• Importers must maintain compliance certificates and supporting test or certification records for at least five years from the certificate creation date.
• De minimis shipments are not exempt – any product requiring certification must have an eFiled certificate, regardless of the value of the imported shipment.
This new rule does not create any additional testing obligations for products that were not previously subject to certification. However, it materially changes how certificate information must be made available to CPSC and CBP at the time of importation. Importers that are not compliant with this new rule by the applicable effective date will likely experience delays in the release of their shipments and increased scrutiny by the CPSC at the port of entry.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact one of our attorneys.
______________________________________
[1] A reasonable testing program should provide a manufacturer or importer with a high degree of assurance that its consumer product complies with the applicable consumer product safety rule or standard.
[2] The Reference PGA Message Set is intended to streamline eFiling for importers that repeatedly import regulated products covered by the same product certificate. The certificate may be referenced for each product/entry line covered by that same certificate, provided the certificate data remains accurate and applicable.
________________________________________________________________________________
CSMS # 69183472 - Updated Global Guidance for International Mail- USCBP
On June 24, 2026, CBP announced the indefinite suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(C) for imports valued at $800 or less arriving through the international postal network by regulation. See Federal Register (Indefinite Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Mail Shipments and New Postal Informal Entry Process). Most merchandise entering the United States via international mail has not been eligible for the de minimis exemption since the exemption was suspended for products of all countries by Executive Order 14324 (July 30, 2025), and international mail shipments have been subject to an interim entry process.
Effective July 24, 2026, such merchandise must be entered under the new postal informal entry process announced in the Federal Register and detailed in CBP Regulations. This new postal informal entry process is generally applicable to merchandise valued at $2,500 or less that is eligible for informal entry and imported by mail.
This guidance explains the new process for importing goods by mail valued at $2,500 or less. It covers who can use the process, what information must be submitted, bond and payment requirements, and deadlines.
Any questions regarding this guidance can be sent to CBPDM@cbp.dhs.gov.
Related Message Number(s): 66311990
• Updated Global Guidance for International Mail-7.7.26.pdf
• International Mail Duty Payment Sheet.xlsx
________________________________________________________________________________
CBP Miami’s Operation Striker Shield seizes over $1.5 million in cocaine destined for India - USCBP
MIAMI, Fla. – U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Miami Field Operations officers intercepted a significant shipment containing 22 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride at an air cargo warehouse near Miami International Airport on June 17.
CBP officers, operating under Operation Striker Shield, inspected a parcel, manifested as "Music Equipment," which was being shipped from Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, to Delhi, India.
Operation Striker Shield focuses on targeting large shipments that pose a risk of potential narcotics smuggling activity during the FIFA World Cup 2026.
During the inspection, CBP officers discovered eight pouches and four bricks of a white powdery substance concealed within four speakers and two amplifiers. Officers field-tested the powdery substance, confirming the presence of cocaine hydrochloride.
The cocaine weighed a combined 22.35 kilograms, or 49 pounds, four ounces. It has a street value of approximately $1.5 million.
"This significant seizure underscores CBP’s unwavering commitment to securing our borders and preventing dangerous narcotics from reaching communities both here and abroad," said Daniel Alonso, Director of Field Operations for CBP's Miami and Tampa Field Office. "Operation Striker Shield, combined with the vigilance and expertise of our officers, is effectively disrupting transnational criminal organizations attempting to exploit legitimate trade routes. We will continue to leverage intelligence, advanced targeting, and officer intuition to interdict these illicit shipments."
CBP officers seized the cocaine. Homeland Security Investigations special agents are investigating.
Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, CBP officers stop illicit narcotics from entering our communities and facilitate lawful trade and travel into the United States.
________________________________________________________________________________
Federal Register Notices:
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Circumvention Inquiry on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders
• Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Algeria: Countervailing Duty Order
• Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and the Republic of Türkiye: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders
• Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
• Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
• Standard Steel Welded Wire Mesh From Mexico: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
• Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From Bahrain, India, and the Republic of Türkiye: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Orders
• Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders
• Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Orders
• Silicon Metal From Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, and Malaysia: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Glycine From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024; Correction
• N-Cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-Sulfenamide From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation
• Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
• Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Algeria: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
• Countervailing Duty Order of Phosphate Fertilizers From the Kingdom of Morocco: Temporary Duty Free Importation
• Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
• Certain Paper Plates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders
• Certain Paper Plates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders
________________________________________________________________________________
In the News:
• US Container Imports Jumped 8% in June Ahead of Higher Fuel Costs and Tariff Increases [Reuters]
• Trump Wants to Cut Off Trade With Spain. Here’s What the U.S. Gets From the Country [US News]•
________________________________________________________________________________
FTC Warns Companies Making Questionable ‘Made in the USA’ Claims - FTC
Warning letters sent to seven companies urge compliance with FTC’s Made in the USA Standard
The Federal Trade Commission today issued warning letters to seven companies that appear to have misrepresented certain products as “Made in the USA,” and one company that appears to have misrepresented certain products as “Made in Texas,” despite indications that such products were imported, in whole or in significant part.
“When Americans spend their hard-earned dollars on goods marketed as ‘Made in the USA,’ they deserve to have confidence that these products were all or virtually all made in this country,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We will hold accountable any company that undermines Americans’ trust with misleading or outright false U.S. origin claims.”
The letters were issued to companies selling products such as drums, industrial laser machinery, coordinate measuring machines and e-cigarettes. Today’s action furthers the Commission’s ongoing work to ensure products claimed to be made in the United States are actually supporting American workers, manufacturing and communities.
In March, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order, “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be made in America,” directing the Commission to prioritize enforcement actions over unlawful “Made in USA” claims.
In April, the Commission announced three law enforcement actions settling allegations that sellers of American flag products, footwear and electronic dartboards violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, Section 45a and the Made in USA Labeling Rule. The firms agreed to stop making unlawful “Made in USA” claims and to pay redress to injured consumers.
Such law enforcement actions also ensure that American businesses, who have made the necessary investments in domestic manufacturing, are not disadvantaged by bad actors and that there is fair competition for those sellers who truthfully advertise their products as made in the United States.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
________________________________________________________________________________
FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act - Federal Trade Commission
FTC alleged that Amazon routinely denied requests from identity theft victims seeking records of fraudulent transactions made with their personal data
Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud.
The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer’s request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC’s investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e).
“Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to—records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims.”
Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for “security” or “privacy” reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer’s credit card for “security reasons” unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts.
The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law.
The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA.
In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty—a record for a Section 609(e) violation—the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon.
This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl’s Department Stores Inc.
The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final order on behalf of the Commission in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The lead attorneys on this matter include Whitney Moore, Gorana Neskovic and Jamie Hine in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.