26-1005: Monday's "Export/Import Daily Bugle"

MONDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2026

SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | READ ONLINE

(Source: 91 FR 63299, 5 Oct 2026)

While the CIT has not set a timeframe to date, the Court has signaled that refunds be issued as quickly as possible because of the accrual of interest.

Further, while the order to refund IEEPA duties with interest is currently suspended "to the extent that it requires immediate compliance," the CIT is closely monitoring CBP's progress to timely complete the development of CAPE and can lift the suspension of its order at any time.

The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

(Source: Future Federal Register)

(Source: DHS/CBP/CSMS)

(Source: OTR Webinars)

Editor's Note: As of this writing CBP has not updated its current web page, which lists CBP events scheduled for August and September, and states, "October webinars coming soon!"

(Source: Commerce/BIS, 2 Oct 2026)

Respondent: Lambda Research Corporation, 515 Groton Road, Westford, MA.

(Source: State/DDTC)

(Source: The White House)

(Source: Expeditors News, 2 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

On September 23, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a bulletin via its Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) reminding licensed customs brokers to complete required continuing education credits.

Brokers with an "active license" will need to certify completion of 20 hours of continuing education in the 2027 Triennial Status Report.

The deadline to complete the continuing education credit requirement is January 31, 2027.

The CSMS is HERE. Additional information on continuing education requirements and the Triennial Status Report is HERE.

(Source: The Export Practitioner) [Excerpts of paywall publication.]

...The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control has consolidated penalty and enforcement provisions for sanctions imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United Nations Participation Act in new 31 C.F.R. Part 505.

A September 25 final rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 60,821, established the framework for civil and criminal penalties, Pre-Penalty Notices, settlements, Findings of Violation and public disclosure of enforcement resolutions.

A related September 30 rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 61,727, removed duplicative provisions from 36 program-specific regulations and redirected practitioners to Part 505. It also relocated and renumbered recordkeeping, reporting, licensing and administrative provisions.

OFAC said the rules do not materially expand its penalty authority. Practitioners should nonetheless update citations, enforcement-response procedures and compliance materials because many program-specific provisions have moved or been removed.

(Source: KPMG Tax News, 30 Sep 2026)

The U.S. Department of State today released a proposed rule that would amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to focus U.S. Munitions List (USML) controls on technologies the State Department considers the most sensitive, improve regulatory clarity, and reduce regulatory burdens.

The proposed rule would remove certain items from the USML and transfer them to the jurisdiction of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Among other changes, it would narrow controls involving guns and armament, aircraft and related articles, personal protective equipment, and submersible vessels and related articles. For example, the proposal would remove smooth-bore, fixed-barrel canister launchers and most radar altimeters from the USML.

The proposed rule also would revise several ITAR definitions and related provisions, including those addressing "specially designed," development and production, and items excluded from the USML. The changes would expand the circumstances in which certain commodities would be excluded from USML catch-all controls. The proposal also would specify circumstances in which certain commodities modified through demilitarization would no longer be described on the USML, while providing that certification of an item as "demilitarized" by the cognizant Department of Defense (DoD) agency does not by itself mean the item is no longer described on the USML.

In addition, proposed new 22 CFR § 123.26 would provide an exemption from ITAR licensing requirements for the temporary export of an unclassified foreign defense article to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or its authorized service provider when the export is solely for specified activities, including servicing, inspection, testing, calibration, repair, overhaul, upgrading, reconditioning, or one-to-one replacement of a defective item by the original equipment manufacturer or its authorized service provider. . . .

[Continue]

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 5 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]. Contact: [email protected], 1-305-894-1035

Congress is revisiting a familiar question --- what critical infrastructure goods does the U.S. still depend on imports for, and which could realistically be made domestically?

H.R. 1721, the Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act, directs the Department of Commerce to study products used in the nation's 16 designated critical infrastructure sectors that are in high demand but imported because of U.S. manufacturing, materials, or supply chain constraints. The covered sectors include systems such as energy, transportation, communications, water, and manufacturing.

The point of the bill is not to force onshoring but to assess the realistic possibilities. The bill asks DOC to identify where import dependency exists, assess whether domestic production is economically and practically feasible, and weigh likely costs and benefits, including effects on jobs, labor conditions, and product costs. In other words, Congress is asking for a reality check, not a ribbon-cutting schedule.

DOC will also examine whether certain products could be manufactured in rural areas, industrial parks, or rural industrial parks---a nod to both supply chain resilience and regional economic development. DOC must send a report to Congress and the public, including recommendations for increasing U.S. production of feasible candidates, within 18 months. . . . [Continue]

(Source: Washington Tariff & Trade Letter, 5 Oct 2026) [Excerpts of subscription publication]

Commerce is reportedly delaying aircraft-parts licensing for China, using access to U.S. aviation supplies as leverage in trade negotiations. Slower approvals and limits on quantities licensed raise delivery risks in a market that bought $15.9 billion in U.S. civilian aircraft, engines, equipment and parts in 2025.

BIS has slowed export licensing for aircraft parts destined for China and limited quantities approved for Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) to discourage stockpiling, Reuters reported October 1, citing people familiar with the matter.

The measures introduce uncertainty into a substantial U.S. export market: shipments to China in the Census Bureau's broad civilian-aircraft, engines, equipment and parts category reached $15.88 billion in 2025.

Officials have also considered regulations covering landing gear and other aircraft components; a draft included aviation hydraulic fluid supplied by U.S. companies, including ExxonMobil. . . . [Continue]

(Source: Akin Alerts, 5 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

On September 16, 2026, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum titled "Restoring Reciprocity in Government Procurement", directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the United States Trade Representative, in coordination with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, to identify and take legally permitted steps to remove or restrict Canadian-origin items across the federal civil procurement system.

This alert reviews the background and legal framework and outlines the key implementation questions contractors should be tracking. [Summary by Editor.]

A September 16 Presidential Memorandum expands earlier Trump administration actions against Canada by directing federal agencies to identify lawful ways to remove or restrict Canadian-origin products from the U.S. federal civilian procurement system.

The move follows Canada's "Buy Canadian" policies, which several WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) parties, including the United States, have argued discriminate against foreign suppliers and may violate Canada's GPA commitments.

The memorandum does not immediately ban Canadian products from federal contracts. Instead, it instructs the OMB Director, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and other agencies to develop implementation measures and monitor Canada's treatment of U.S. goods. Canadian products remain eligible for federal procurement until further action is taken.

A likely implementation method would be removing Canada from the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) designated-country list, which could bar Canadian-origin products from many covered procurements. However, significant legal and practical questions remain, including potential conflicts with U.S. obligations under the WTO GPA.

Federal contractors should monitor upcoming procurement guidance, particularly GSA MAS Refresh 33, review supply chains for Canadian-origin products, assess alternative sourcing options, and evaluate contract modification mechanisms in case restrictions are implemented. . . .

[Full article]

(Source: ArentFox Perspectives/Alerts, 5 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

Effective October 1, through a final rule, the US Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has officially removed Syria from the list of countries subject to a license review policy of denial under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) contained in § 126.1 of the ITAR. Exports of defense articles and services to Syria will now be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The impact of the final rule is significant. By removing Syria from the ITAR § 126.1 list of countries, the State Department has changed three things:

This change was made possible by the prior satisfaction of several statutory prerequisites, including the rescission of the terrorism-support determination underlying sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act and the waiver or removal of the separate restrictions imposed by the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act, and the Child Soldiers Prevention Act.

[Continue]

(Source: JD Dupra, 5 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

A recent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruling, HQ H322158 (March 20, 2026), creates an important opportunity for importers seeking unused merchandise drawback when customer returns are commingled with unsold inventory.

Unused merchandise drawback allows recovery of up to 99% of duties paid on imported goods that are later exported unused. Historically, CBP applied a strict standard to retail returns. In prior rulings involving apparel, footwear, and accessories, CBP concluded that returned merchandise could not be proven unused through inspection alone and denied drawback when returned goods were mixed with never-sold inventory and could not be separately identified.

The issue is particularly significant for exports to Canada and Mexico under USMCA, where substitution drawback is generally unavailable, making direct identification the primary drawback method. Exporters therefore must establish a connection between exported merchandise and imported goods through inventory records.

In HQ H322158, eyewear importer Safilo USA maintained inventory containing both never-sold and returned merchandise. Because the company could not physically distinguish the two, it proposed using the low-to-high blanket accounting method under 19 C.F.R. § 190.14. Returned units would be assigned a drawback value of zero, and drawback would be claimed only on eligible unsold units. CBP approved the approach.

CBP's ruling established that:

Under this methodology, returned merchandise is counted first when exports occur. Only exports exceeding the quantity of returns may generate drawback claims.

While importers must still demonstrate fungibility, maintain complete inventory records, consistently apply an approved accounting method, and support CBP verification, the ruling provides a practical path for drawback claims involving commingled inventories, particularly for exports to Canada and Mexico.

[Full article]

(Source: Customs & International Trade Law Blog, 5 Oct 2026) [Summary by Editor.]

A seizure by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is more than a delay. It means CBP believes imported merchandise violated U.S. law and may seek forfeiture of the goods. Importers must act quickly because strict deadlines apply.

Why Does CBP Seize Goods? Common reasons include:

CBP may also seize goods merely transiting through the United States if they fail to comply with U.S. requirements.

Detention vs. Seizure. A detention occurs when CBP temporarily holds merchandise while determining admissibility. Ownership remains with the importer. CBP must generally provide a Notice of Detention explaining the reason and anticipated duration.

A seizure is more serious. CBP has taken custody of the merchandise and issued a Notice of Seizure identifying the alleged violation and available response options.

What Should You Do? First, carefully review the Notice of Seizure. Confirm:

Immediately preserve all relevant records, including invoices, entry documents, bills of lading, supplier communications, certificates of origin, licenses, permits, and payment records.

Available Options:

What If You Do Nothing? Failure to respond can result in administrative or judicial forfeiture. Once forfeited, the goods may be sold, destroyed, retained for government use, or otherwise disposed of according to law.

Key Takeaway. A CBP seizure often signals a broader compliance issue involving classification, valuation, origin, admissibility, or supplier practices. Importers should promptly evaluate both the seizure itself and whether similar issues may affect other shipments. Understanding the basis for the seizure, preserving evidence, and meeting all deadlines are critical to protecting your rights and minimizing further enforcement risk. . . . [Full article]

(Source: Steptoe Insights, 2 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

Effective October 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of State promulgated a final rule removing Syria from the list of countries subject to a policy of denial under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR"), 22 CFR § 126.1(d)(1) (the "Rule") (91 FR 62313). . . .

The Rule is a change in ITAR licensing policy administered by DDTC, but it is not a blanket authorization to export, reexport, or retransfer defense articles, including technical data or software, or furnish defense services, to Syria, the Syrian government, or Syrian persons or nationals, to temporarily import defense articles from Syria (e.g., for repair/refurbishment), or to otherwise engage in brokering of U.S. or foreign defense articles or defense services involving Syria.

As with ITAR-regulated export or brokering activities involving any foreign person, a license, license exemption, or other authorization from DDTC (including registration) is required.

The defense industry exporting, reexporting, or retransferring in both ITAR-controlled defense articles or defense services and items subject to the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR") should ensure that any proposed mixed shipments or transfers are fully authorized given that the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS") has not yet issued a companion rule.

As of this writing, Syria therefore remains listed under Country Group E:1 and subject to sanctions, embargoes, or other special controls in Part 746 of the EAR, even though the U.S. government has previously stated that regulatory amendments to the EAR regarding Syria are forthcoming. Until the EAR is amended, Syria remains subject to its onerous Anti-Terrorism controls. . . .

The Rule is the latest step in a sequence of U.S. actions easing restrictions on Syria since the fall of the Assad government. These actions reflect continued U.S. support for Syria's reintegration with the world economy by removing the ITAR arms embargo against Syria. Steptoe attorneys stand ready to assist clients in assessing the evolving rules, conducting diligence, managing export control and sanctions risks, and prudently undertaking Syria-related activities to limit international trade and regulatory compliance liabilities.

(Source: Torres Insights, 2 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

On July 14, 2026, the Trade Fraud Task Force, a joint initiative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement. The guide is directed at trade and enforcement professionals, businesses, more than 450,000 active Importers of Record (IORs) registered with CBP, and other parties involved in U.S. trade.

Its message is clear: federal trade and customs enforcement remains a coordinated DOJ and DHS priority, and violations can lead to far more than administrative fines, denied entry, or seizure of goods. Depending on the conduct, companies and individuals may also face civil and criminal enforcement. . . . [Continue]

(Source: Volkov Law, 4 Oct 2026) [Excerpts]

In this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov traces the decades-long relationship between compliance and data, from the profession's earliest, checkbox-style attempts to measure program effectiveness through crude proxies like hotline volume and training completion rates, through the rise of continuous monitoring systems, integrated dashboards, and key risk indicators that enabled expedited auditing and near-real-time visibility, and finally to the current AI-driven era, where machine learning and natural language processing can surface subtle risk patterns no human-authored rule would catch and compress the gap between detection and action to hours rather than months.

He argues that each phase of this evolution was driven not by strategic foresight but by escalating business, regulatory, and litigation risk, first around proving program effectiveness itself, then data privacy and cybersecurity, and now AI governance, and closes by cautioning that AI monitoring tools will only perform as well as the underlying data infrastructure and discipline a compliance function has already built.

Listen to podcast HERE.

(Source: Jenny Hahn, [email protected])

(Source: Editor)

RECENT:

FULL LIST (Includes above entries.):

(Source: Brainy Quotes)

(Source: History Channel)

1902: The Wright brothers receive a patent on October 5, 1902, related to their pioneering airplane designs, an important milestone in aviation history.

1947: Harry Truman delivers first-ever presidential speech on TV. On October 5, 1947, President Harry Truman (1884-1972) makes the first-ever televised presidential address from the White House, asking Americans to cut back on their use of grain in order to help starving Europeans. In 1947, television was still in its infancy and the number of TV sets in U.S. homes only numbered in the thousands (by the early 1950s, millions of Americans owned TVs); most people listened to the radio for news and entertainment. His speech signaled the start of a powerful and complex relationship between the White House and a medium that would have an enormous impact on the American presidency, from how candidates campaigned for the office to how presidents communicated with their constituents (or even how they got elected).

1974: American circumnavigates the globe on foot. American Dave Kunst completes the first round-the-world journey on foot, taking four years and 21 pairs of shoes to complete the 14,500-mile journey across the land masses of four continents. He left his hometown of Waseca, Minnesota, on June 20, 1970. Near the end of his journey in 1974 he explained the reasons for his epic trek: "I was tired of Waseca, tired of my job, tired of a lot of little people who don't want to think, and tired of my wife." He was accompanied by his brother, John, but in 1972 John Kunst was shot to death by bandits in Afghanistan and Dave was wounded. After returning to Minnesota to recuperate, Kunst traveled back to Afghanistan and continued his global journey, returning to Waseca on October 5, 1974.

25. Do You Need to Update Your Daily Bugle Profile?

(Source: Editor)

Don't miss an issue of the Daily Bugle if you change your email. Click here to manage your profile.

26. Are Your Copies of Export/Import Regulations Current?

(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) but are updated as amended in the Federal Register. The latest amendments are listed below.