Chamber of Commerce Warns Customs Order May Hurt Legal Traders

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging the Trump administration to soften the impact of Executive Order 14411, warning that the most comprehensive customs enforcement directive in recent history could raise compliance costs and legal exposure for lawful importers.

In a letter to Secretary Mullin and Commissioner Scott, Neil L. Bradley, the Chamber's Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, said the group "broadly supports efforts to stop counterfeiters and other malicious actors from circumventing U.S. customs laws" but is concerned the Order "may inadvertently harm the broader business community."

The Order, published at 91 FR 35125, updates customs authorities the administration itself calls "long overdue." Bradley agrees on the need for modernization. The dispute is over how the new requirements land on companies that already play by the rules.

New Certification Burdens

At the core of the Chamber's concerns is the Order's signal that importers will have to affirmatively certify compliance with U.S. customs laws at multiple points along the importation process. Bradley writes that this "may lead to increased legal exposure, higher compliance costs, and reduced global competitiveness."

He singles out four provisions as significant new requirements: the definition of "good standing," specific minimum bond levels, the scope of disclosure requirements, and the risk tiering methodology. Each will "potentially require significant time and resources for U.S. businesses to collect, verify, and report."

Small businesses face the sharpest risk, according to the letter. They "frequently have fewer resources and lower minimum continuous bonds to adapt to these policies." The Chamber's position is that measures designed to catch malicious actors could end up penalizing companies with thin compliance staffs and limited bonding capacity.

The Chamber's Three Recommendations

Bradley asks the Department of Homeland Security to pursue solutions that give equal weight to enforcement and trade facilitation, so U.S. businesses can compete effectively in global markets. He points to what he calls a "long and successful working relationship" between DHS and the business community in identifying compliance gaps while creating opportunities for lawful traders. He cites the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, which features prominently in the Order, as a model.

Second, he urges the use of notice-and-comment rulemakings and broad engagement with the business community, including through the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, as the Order is implemented.

Third, he calls on the administration to work with Congress on comprehensive customs reform legislation. That legislation, he argues, should not only update CBP's enforcement tools but "also prioritize a robust trade facilitation component that supports our nation's competitiveness."

"Customs reform should not only provide CBP with appropriate authority and tools to stop unlawful trade, but also facilitate lawful trade, protect good actors, and provide opportunities for the U.S. business community to engage CBP in advancing its critical trade mission," Bradley writes.

The letter was copied to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, the two congressional panels with jurisdiction over trade policy. That distribution signals the Chamber expects the fight over customs enforcement to move from executive action to legislation.

Bradley closes on a cooperative note: "We look forward to working with you and your team in implementing this Order."

For importers, the immediate question is how DHS writes the implementing rules. The Chamber has now put bond levels, disclosure scope, and risk tiering on the record as contested ground — and signaled that Capitol Hill will be the next venue if the balance between enforcement and facilitation tips too far toward the former.