Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE)

3/19/2026 Update

On Thursday March 19, CBP provided an update to the CIT on their CAPE development progress.

The function is currently being developed and further tested throughout the past week.

According to CBP, development progress on the four integrated components is as follows:

• Claim Portal – 73% complete
• Mass Processing – 45% complete
• Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation – 80% complete
• Refund – 63% complete

“Within the next week, CBP will continue developing and testing additional capabilities to support the refund consolidation functionality.”

 

CIT Clarifies IEEPA Refund Orders

On Friday, March 20, Judge Eaton issued an update to his original orders regarding IEEPA refunds.

After a closed-door conference, the day before on March 19 with both councils from the Plaintiffs and the Government, Judge Eaton added that “all duties imposed by various Executive Orders pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including those imposed on imports from Brazil and India. The original order had stated that CPB shall liquidate entries without regard to IEEPA in general, and some questions arose around the fact that Brazil and India weren’t specifically mentioned. This addition clears up that confusion.

Some questions still revolve around what options importers will have for entries for which have been “finally” liquidated. The court and council discussed this specifically during the closed meeting, but wrote, “no resolution was reached with respect to the reliquidation of entries for which liquidation has become final, importers should be aware of the remedies available under 19 U.S.C 1514 (Protest).

Judge Eaton wrote that the court is satisfied with the latest progress CBP has made in the programming and testing of CAPE to allow importers to receive refunds.

He adds that CBP is ordered to provide, by 12pm EDT on March 31, 2026, a progress report pertaining to the completion of CAPE. There is a closed settlement conference scheduled between CIT and council that same day.

This order remains suspended until CBP indicates that CAPE is functional and works to provide importer with refunds in IEEPA duties.

 

Conducting Customs Business as an Online Platform Without a License

CBP recently published HQ Ruling H350722 regarding an unnamed foreign “Unlicensed Company” that provides an online platform connecting importers and brokers.

The ruling looks at the legal aspect under 19 CFR 111 if certain aspects of company’s services fall under the definition of “Customs Business” as defined by part 111.1

The online platform in question was explained to have 3 main functions

1. Connecting importers to brokers for the purpose of making entry
2. Utilizing an OCR tool (Optical Character Recognition) to pull data elements from shipping documents for entry purposes, and
3. Derive USHTS codes via an AI classification tool

To summarize, CBP explained that the relationship between US import brokers and importers should be directly connected. A Power of Attorney is required for the importer to authorize the broker to conduct “Customs Business” on their behalf. “CBP cautioned that an unlicensed entity may not serve as an intermediary between a broker and importer if the unlicensed entity is actively participating “in decisions and activities relating to the preparation or filing of Customs documents for imported merchandise or relating to any other action amounting to customs business.” The mentioned online platform allows for a chat system to connect importers and brokers and allows for document transmissions. While this is inherently not considered “Customs Business”, it does raise client confidentiality concerns.

The online platform also provides an OCR (Optical Character Recognition) tool that pulls specific entry data from shipping documents to use during the entry process. CBP finds this tool to be impermissible under 19 CFR 111 based on the definition of “Customs Business”. Part 111.1 states, in part, that “Customs Business” also includes the preparation, and activities relating to the preparation, of documents in any format and the electronic transmission of documents and parts of documents intended to be filed with CBP in furtherance of any other customs business activity, whether or not signed or filed by the preparer.

CBP also looked at the classification function of the tool. They ruled that if only a subheading at 6 digits was begin determined, that doesn’t necessarily constitute “Customs Business” as it is not a full HTS code that can be used for entry purposes. Essentially if anything Customs related being done can be tied to an entry, then it’s “Customs Business”. If a full 10-digit code is being provided by the AI tool, then it is considered “Customs Business” and is impermissible under Part 111.

The ruling also mentioned this Unlicensed Company has filed CBP Form 5106 on behalf of importers. CBP ruled that this filing is conserved “Customs Business” as “CBP Form 5106 must be filed prior to making entry and is thus needed for first-time importers.”

This ruling could change the way importers and software/platform developers create and use these newly available tools.

 

New 232 Steel/Aluminum/Copper Guidance Available

An updated version of the unofficial guidance from CBP’s Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise is making its rounds within the trade community. This new version dated March 15, 2026, provided some more details from the previous version dated January 15, 2026.

The new details include:

• For costs that are attributable to both the non-steel/aluminum/copper content and the steel/aluminum/copper content, like labor, overhead, profit, packaging, etc., an acceptable method is to apportion the costs to both lines based on a value ratio.
• If an obviously non-steel or aluminum article like perfume or lotion is on a Section 232 derivatives tariff numbers list, it is the article’s container that is the target of Section 232, and it is the importer’s cost of the container, if made of aluminum or steel, that is subject to the Section 232 duty (like HTS 2203.00.0060 and 2203.00.0090 for malt beer in an aluminum can).
• An added timeline includes the distinction between steel and iron.