CBP Heightened Import Disclosures: What to Know

CBP’s heightened import disclosures initiative could materially change the information required to enter goods into the United States. Although no final requirements have been adopted, customs brokers, importers, carriers, and drawback teams should begin evaluating whether their systems can capture, validate, retain, and transmit substantially more supply chain data.

What CBP Is Considering Under the ANPRM

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 2, 2026, examines possible changes intended to expose the parties, transactions, and production activity behind imported merchandise. The comment period remains open through December 1, 2026. Because this is an ANPRM rather than a proposed or final rule, the eventual requirements, implementation dates, and affected entry types remain uncertain.

CBP has presented 64 questions covering foreign export records, manufacturer identification, global business identifiers, technical tracing, CTPAT, and economic impact. The breadth of those questions suggests that heightened import disclosures could affect more than entry preparation. They could influence supplier onboarding, purchase order controls, transportation deadlines, document retention, audit procedures, and post-entry programs.

Foreign Export Documentation

One central issue is whether importers of record should submit or retain documents created for export from the country of departure. These records could include export declarations, invoices presented to foreign customs authorities, packing lists, certificates of origin, export licenses, and transportation documents.

CBP is considering whether submission should be universal, risk-based, or limited to designated goods. It is also evaluating document accuracy, retention periods, translation of non-English records, verification with foreign authorities, and discrepancies between foreign export values and U.S. customs values. Those discrepancies are not automatically evidence of noncompliance, because valuation methods and reporting conventions can differ. They would nevertheless require documented explanations and effective escalation controls.

Party Identification and Technical Tracing

The existing Manufacturer Identification Code provides limited, non-unique information. CBP is therefore considering full names and addresses for manufacturers, shippers, exporters, online marketplaces, and ultimate delivery parties, potentially at the manifest, entry, and entry summary stages.

Global Business Identifiers—including D-U-N-S numbers, Global Location Numbers, Legal Entity Identifiers, and Altana IDs—could supplement or replace existing identifiers. CBP is also evaluating AI-assisted transshipment detection, raw-material origin verification, tamper-resistant credentials, ACE integration, participating government agency integration, and enhanced CTPAT expectations. Each concept raises practical questions about interoperability, data ownership, cybersecurity, and the reliability of information supplied several tiers upstream.

Operational and Duty Drawback Implications

Heightened import disclosures would move customs compliance further upstream. Importers could no longer depend exclusively on documents received shortly before entry filing. They would generally need structured processes for obtaining foreign customs records, validating business identities, resolving inconsistent values, and preserving the relationship between supporting records and individual shipments.

Entry Filing and Logistics Workflows

Earlier or more detailed reporting could affect booking, loading, arrival, and entry timelines. If required information is unavailable when a carrier or broker must transmit data, cargo may face delayed filing, enhanced review, or operational holds. In ocean transportation, such delays could increase exposure to storage, demurrage, or detention costs, depending on the facts and contractual arrangements.

Customs brokers would need clear responsibility matrices defining which party collects each data element, who validates it, and how exceptions are handled. Broker instructions and powers of attorney would not, by themselves, solve upstream data deficiencies. Importers would remain responsible for establishing reasonable compliance procedures, while brokers would need controls appropriate to the information used in filings under their filer codes.

Effects on Duty Drawback Data

Duty drawback claims depend on reliable import records that can be connected to exports or destructions. Core data such as entry numbers, tariff classifications, quantities, values, manufacturer information, and merchandise descriptions supports designation, matching, substitution analysis, and claim substantiation.

Additional manufacturer and exporter identifiers could improve the precision of those connections. Structured party data may help distinguish suppliers with similar names, identify manufacturing relationships, and support review of origin or transshipment risk. Foreign export documentation could also provide another layer of evidence when validating the commercial path of imported merchandise.

The benefit depends on data quality. If identifiers are entered inconsistently, changed without governance, or stored outside the drawback record, additional disclosure requirements could create more reconciliation work rather than better visibility. Drawback teams should therefore treat new identifiers as controlled master data, not free-text fields.

Audit and Recordkeeping Exposure

More required data would create more points at which an entry could be incomplete or inconsistent. Trade compliance teams may need to compare foreign export declarations, commercial invoices, purchase orders, transportation records, and U.S. entry data before filing or through structured post-entry review.

Retention controls would also need to account for confidentiality restrictions and cross-border privacy obligations. Access should generally be limited by role, with documented handling procedures for commercially sensitive supplier, customer, and production information.

How Trade Teams Should Prepare

The ANPRM does not create immediate filing obligations, but waiting for a proposed or final rule could leave too little time to redesign supplier, broker, and technology workflows. A measured readiness program can identify the most consequential gaps without treating every concept under consideration as a settled requirement.

Map Current Data and Document Availability

Importers should inventory which foreign export documents are available by country, supplier, mode, and transaction type. The review should determine who creates each document, when it becomes available, whether it can be transmitted electronically, and whether its values and party names can be connected to U.S. entry data.

The same exercise should cover manufacturer, shipper, exporter, marketplace, and delivery-party information. Legal names, addresses, tax identifiers, and available global business identifiers should be compared against current vendor master records and broker instructions. Particular attention should be given to intermediated transactions in which the importer has limited direct contact with the manufacturer.

Test High-Risk Scenarios

A useful pilot can select representative entries involving multiple suppliers, transshipment points, related parties, non-English records, or goods with elevated origin risk. The compliance team can then test whether supporting records arrive before the relevant filing deadline and whether discrepancies can be resolved without disrupting cargo movement.

Duty drawback participants should include claims data in this test. New identifiers should remain associated with the import line after entry, liquidation, post-entry correction, reconciliation, export, and drawback claim preparation. A disclosure field that disappears during downstream processing provides little compliance value.

Develop Data-Backed Comments

Affected businesses have until December 1, 2026, to provide practical input. Effective comments typically explain how a potential requirement would operate in real transactions, quantify implementation burdens where possible, and propose workable alternatives.

Relevant issues may include phased implementation, commodity- or country-specific risk models, voluntary testing, accommodations for small businesses, treatment of confidential information, document translation, identifier governance, and exceptions when foreign law limits document sharing. Brokers and importers should also assess whether universal submission is necessary or whether retention with risk-based production would meet enforcement goals at lower operational cost.

Establish Governance Before Technology Selection

Technology can support supply chain tracing, but it cannot resolve unclear accountability. Organizations should first define ownership for supplier data, validation standards, exception handling, correction procedures, and retention. Those controls provide the foundation for evaluating identifiers, integrations, credentials, or AI-assisted detection tools as the rulemaking develops.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Heightened Import Disclosures Already Required?

No. CBP has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to gather information and evaluate possible approaches. The ANPRM does not itself establish new entry requirements. Any binding obligations would generally require additional rulemaking, including more specific regulatory language and an implementation framework.

What Foreign Export Documents Could Be Affected?

Potentially relevant records include foreign export declarations, invoices submitted to foreign customs authorities, packing lists, certificates of origin, export licenses, and transportation documents. CBP is considering whether importers should submit these records with entry data or retain them for production under specified circumstances.

Could the Manufacturer Identification Code Be Replaced?

CBP is considering whether the current Manufacturer Identification Code should be redefined, supplemented, or replaced. Possible alternatives include full manufacturer names and addresses, foreign tax identifiers, and recognized Global Business Identifiers. The final approach, if any, has not been determined.

How Could the Initiative Affect Customs Brokers?

Brokers could receive larger and more complex data sets from importer clients, along with increased responsibility for identifying missing or inconsistent information before transmission. They may need revised client instructions, validation procedures, escalation workflows, document controls, and system fields while continuing to file entries under their own filer codes.

Why Does This Matter for Duty Drawback Claims?

Drawback claims rely on accurate import data to support the relationship between imported merchandise and subsequent exports or destructions. More detailed party identifiers and foreign documentation could strengthen traceability, but inconsistent fields could complicate matching and substantiation. Drawback programs should preserve any new data through the full claim lifecycle.

What Should Importers Do Before December 1, 2026?

Importers should assess document availability, supplier capabilities, data confidentiality constraints, filing timelines, and implementation costs. Organizations facing significant operational effects should consider submitting detailed comments that explain real-world constraints and recommend practical phase-ins, testing programs, or risk-based alternatives.

How Stable Software Can Help

Support Broker-Led Drawback Operations

Heightened disclosure requirements could make consistent import data even more important for drawback claims. Stable Software’s DrawbackAI platform provides duty drawback software that U.S. customs brokers can white-label for importer clients while filing under the broker’s own filer code.

Stable Software charges a flat software license and never takes a percentage of the importer’s refund. For brokers evaluating how evolving manufacturer, exporter, value, and entry data may flow into drawback operations, DrawbackAI offers a broker-led software model aligned with retaining control of client service and filing activity. Interested customs brokers can explore the platform as part of their broader readiness planning.

Resources