Category: Blog

BMSB Season 2026/27: Important Import and Export Requirements for Australia and New Zealand

September 2026 marks the beginning of BMSB season.

BMSB seasonal measures are now in effect for shipments to Australia and New Zealand.

Importers and Exporters moving cargo to Australia or New Zealand should be aware that seasonal biosecurity measures for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) apply from 1 September 2026 through 30 April 2027.

These measures are designed to prevent BMSB and other pests from entering Australia and New Zealand through international cargo.

For businesses shipping machinery, vehicles, metal products, equipment and other potentially high-risk goods, getting the treatment and documentation right before shipment is essential. Failure to comply can result in inspections, treatment, delays and additional costs at destination.

What is BMSB?

The Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) is an invasive pest that can hide in cargo, shipping containers, machinery, vehicles and other goods.

The insect is particularly active as a biosecurity risk during the northern hemisphere autumn and winter. It seeks sheltered places to survive colder temperatures, which means international cargo can become an ideal hiding place.

When cargo arrives in Australia or New Zealand, authorities may inspect shipments for BMSB and other biosecurity risks.

The consequences of an infestation can be significant. Both countries have strict biosecurity controls to protect their agricultural industries, environment and economy.

FURTHER READING

When does the 2026/27 BMSB season apply?

Australia

For Australia, the 2026/27 BMSB risk season runs from 1 September 2026 to 30 April 2027, inclusive.

Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) measures apply to targeted goods manufactured in or shipped from designated target-risk countries when shipped during this period.

The on-board date shown on the Ocean Bill of Lading is used to determine when goods were shipped. A container’s gate-in date is not accepted for this purpose.

Certain vessels that berth, load or tranship in target-risk countries during the BMSB season can also be subject to seasonal vessel requirements.

New Zealand

New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) also operates a BMSB risk season from 1 September to 30 April.

For applicable target vehicles, machinery and parts, the measures apply when goods are exported on or after 1 September and arrive in New Zealand on or before 30 April.

MPI also has specific BMSB requirements for sea containers exported from Italy during the risk season.

Which shipments are affected?

Not every shipment to Australia or New Zealand automatically requires BMSB treatment.

The requirements depend on factors including:

  • Country of manufacture
  • Country of export or shipment
  • Transit and transhipment arrangements
  • Type of goods
  • Whether the cargo is new or used
  • Shipping method
  • Applicable Australian or New Zealand biosecurity rules
  • Whether the goods fall within a specified high-risk or target-risk category

For Australia, DAFF states that target high-risk goods shipped as sea cargo from target-risk countries during the BMSB season generally require mandatory treatment, subject to specific exemptions.

This is particularly important for businesses shipping machinery, vehicles, equipment, metal products and other goods that may provide hiding places for BMSB.

BMSB treatment requirements

Where treatment is mandatory, the cargo must be treated using an approved treatment method and in accordance with the applicable biosecurity requirements.

For Australia, approved BMSB treatment options include heat treatment, methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride, subject to the prescribed treatment conditions.

Australia has also introduced ethyl formate as a new onshore BMSB treatment option for the 2026/27 season.

For New Zealand, MPI provides approved treatment pathways and requires treatment to be carried out in accordance with its approved biosecurity treatment requirements. Depending on the commodity and applicable pathway, treatment may include offshore fumigation or heat treatment by an MPI-approved treatment provider.

Treatment certificates and documentation

Correct documentation is just as important as the physical treatment.

Where treatment is required, importers and exporters must make sure they have the correct BMSB treatment certificate and supporting documents. The documents must meet the requirements of the relevant destination country’s biosecurity authority.

For New Zealand, MPI requires importers to provide a treatment certificate from an MPI-approved treatment provider when the applicable BMSB treatment pathway requires one.

For Australia, DAFF can inspect cargo when it arrives and may require further biosecurity action if the shipment does not meet the requirements. To reduce the risk of delays and additional treatment costs, businesses should arrange BMSB treatment offshore before the cargo reaches Australia.

Always check the treatment requirements before you ship. The correct treatment and documentation can help prevent unnecessary delays, inspections and additional costs at destination.

What happens if BMSB requirements are not met?

Non-compliant cargo can face additional intervention at destination.

Depending on the circumstances, authorities may:

  • Hold the shipment
  • Inspect the cargo or container
  • Require treatment
  • Direct the cargo for onshore treatment
  • Delay cargo clearance
  • Apply additional biosecurity controls
  • Create additional storage, handling and treatment costs

For LCL and FAK shipments entering Australia, BMSB risk can be managed at the container level before deconsolidation. Containers subject to BMSB controls may be placed on a seasonal pest hold and require the appropriate declarations before release.

In other words, a missing certificate or incorrect treatment can quickly turn into a costly logistics problem.

What should importers and exporters do?

If you are shipping cargo to Australia or New Zealand between September and April, we recommend checking BMSB requirements before the shipment is booked and before the cargo is loaded.

1. Check the country of origin and shipping route

Confirm whether your cargo originates from, or has been shipped through, a country covered by the relevant BMSB measures.

Transit and transhipment arrangements can affect the applicable requirements, so the complete routing should be reviewed rather than looking only at the final port of departure.

2. Check whether your goods are classified as target or high-risk goods

The commodity itself is important.

Machinery, vehicles, parts, metal products and other goods with potential pest-hiding places can fall within BMSB controls.

Do not assume that a shipment is exempt simply because similar cargo was not treated during another season.

3. Arrange treatment before shipment where required

If treatment is mandatory, use an approved treatment provider and ensure the correct treatment method and parameters are applied.

Where possible, offshore treatment can help reduce the risk of delays and additional treatment after arrival.

4. Obtain the correct treatment documentation

Make sure the relevant certificate and supporting documents are completed correctly and are available for the shipment.

Documentation should be checked before the vessel sails, not after the container arrives at destination.

5. Allow additional time during the BMSB season

Biosecurity inspections and treatment requirements can affect cargo clearance.

Allowing extra time in the supply chain is particularly important for machinery, vehicles, equipment and other cargo categories that may require intervention.

Don’t let a biosecurity issue become a shipping delay

BMSB compliance should be treated as part of your shipment planning, not something to deal with once the container reaches the destination port.

For importers, checking the BMSB requirements before purchasing goods can help avoid unexpected treatment, storage and clearance costs.

For exporters, confirming the requirements with your freight forwarder and treatment provider before loading can help prevent documentation problems and delays later in the journey.

If you are exporting to Australia or New Zealand between 1 September 2026 and 30 April 2027, speak to us before shipping. We can help check the applicable BMSB requirements for your cargo, origin, routing and destination and advise whether treatment and supporting documentation are required.

Important note

BMSB requirements can vary according to the commodity, country of origin, country of export, routing, shipping method and current biosecurity rules. Requirements may also be updated during the season.

Always confirm the current requirements with the relevant authority and your freight forwarder before shipment.

Contact Us

Canada Import Ban: What Importers Need to Review Before September 29

The U.S.–Canada trade relationship has shifted again — and this time, the change is different in kind. On September 8, the White House announced a Canada import ban covering certain dairy products, motorcycles and mopeds, most alcoholic beverages, and several types of molasses. The measure is scheduled to take effect September 29.

For importers who have spent the past several months adjusting to tariff changes, this development requires a different response. A tariff raises the cost of bringing goods across the border. A ban removes the option entirely. There is no duty to calculate, no landed-cost model to rebuild, and no exemption process announced to date. Affected merchandise simply cannot enter.

How we got here

The U.S. Administration imposed 50% tariffs on roughly 5% of Canadian imports on August 22, citing treatment of American dairy, alcoholic beverage and automotive industries. Bilateral negotiations broke down the day before. On September 8, Canada’s retaliatory tariffs took effect on approximately $20 billion in U.S. goods — including steel, aluminum, cheese, appliances, clothing, cosmetics and farm equipment — at rates of 15%, 25% and 50%. The import ban announced later that same day is the U.S. response.

Separately, the Administration directed the General Services Administration to make Canadian products ineligible for large, long-term U.S. government contracts. Businesses that supply the federal government, directly or as a subcontractor, should treat that as a distinct exposure from the goods ban.

Both governments have indicated that trade representatives remain in contact, and further conversations are expected. Nothing in the current posture suggests a resolution before the September 29 effective date.

What importers should be doing now

Twenty-one days is a short window. We recommend clients focus on four things:

Confirm classification, not category. The announcement describes product groups in general terms. Whether your goods are captured depends on the specific HTS classification, not on how the product is described commercially. Whey and other dairy derivatives are named explicitly, which means ingredients and inputs — not just finished consumer goods — are in scope. Review your Canadian-origin lines at the tariff-code level.

Map what is already in transit. The critical question for goods currently moving is which date controls: export, arrival, or entry. Prohibition orders have handled this differently in the past. Until the operative language is published, identify every shipment expected to arrive near the effective date so you can act quickly once the mechanics are confirmed.

Check origin, not just routing. Goods that transit Canada are treated differently from goods of Canadian origin. If your supply chain moves product through Canada from a third country, confirm your origin documentation is complete and defensible.

Assess sourcing alternatives early. If a banned input is essential to your production, the qualification timeline for an alternate supplier will almost certainly be longer than the compliance timeline. Starting that conversation now costs little; starting it in October may cost a great deal.

What has not changed

Future Forwarding will not alter how we clear your shipments until we are formally authorized to do so in writing by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. An announcement establishes policy; CBP guidance establishes procedure. We are monitoring for CSMS messages and Federal Register publication, and we will communicate the operative details to you as soon as they are issued.

We would also encourage clients not to assume that current tariff treatment on unaffected Canadian goods will hold. This situation has moved quickly, in both directions, and the businesses that have handled it best are the ones that reviewed their exposure before they were required to.

Let’s review your entries together

If you import from Canada — or through Canada — our team can review your classifications and identify where the Canada import ban creates exposure. Contact your Future Forwarding representative to schedule that review.

CO₂ Emission Reporting Available for Future Forwarding Clients in NEO

Understanding the environmental impact of your freight is becoming an increasingly important part of managing a modern supply chain.

At Future Forwarding, we’re making it easier for our clients to access shipment emissions information themselves, with CO₂ emission reporting available through NEO.

If you have a NEO login, you can use the platform to access CO₂ emission information for your shipments, giving you greater visibility of the environmental impact of your logistics activity.

Access your shipment CO₂ data through NEO

We know our clients want more than just reliable freight services. Increasingly, businesses need better information about the environmental impact of their supply chains too.

That’s where NEO’s CO₂ emission reporting can help.

The self-service reporting feature allows clients with NEO access to view available emissions information relating to their shipments. This means you can access the information you need when you need it, without having to request a separate report from our team each time.

Why is shipment emissions data important?

Every shipment has an environmental impact. Factors such as transport mode, distance, routing and other characteristics of the movement can influence the emissions associated with moving your goods.

Having access to emissions information gives you a useful starting point for understanding that impact.

For our clients, CO₂ emission reporting in NEO can help you:

  • View shipment emissions information through your NEO account.
  • Monitor the environmental impact of your freight across your shipments.
  • Support internal sustainability reporting with accessible shipment data.
  • Identify areas for further investigation within your supply chain.
  • Make more informed logistics decisions with environmental information alongside your shipment data.
  • Respond to growing demand for emissions visibility from customers, partners and other stakeholders.

It’s another way we’re helping our clients get more value from their logistics data

A self-service tool for Future Forwarding clients

One of the key benefits of the CO₂ reporting feature is its self-service approach.

If you already have a NEO login, you can access the reporting functionality directly through the platform. This puts your shipment emissions information at your fingertips and gives you the flexibility to check your data as part of your normal logistics activity.

You don’t need to wait for a report to be prepared manually. Simply log in to NEO and use the available CO₂ reporting functionality.

This can be particularly useful for businesses managing regular shipments and looking for a more consistent way to access emissions information across their freight activity.

How can I access CO₂ emission reporting?

To use CO₂ emission reporting in NEO, you’ll need an active NEO login with the appropriate access.

Please contact your Account Manager or email neo@ukffcl.com to request access to the Carbon Emission Module. We can also send you a step-by-step guide to help you.

If you’re already a Future Forwarding client and have access, you can get started by logging in to the platform.

Future Forwarding: giving you greater visibility

At Future Forwarding, we believe good freight forwarding is about more than moving goods from A to B. It’s also about giving our clients the information and visibility they need to manage their supply chains effectively.

Making CO₂ emission reporting available through NEO gives our clients a simple, self-service way to better understand the environmental impact of their shipments.

As sustainability continues to play a bigger role in supply chain decisions, having access to relevant emissions information can help you stay informed and support your wider environmental goals.

Don’t have a NEO login?

If you’re a Future Forwarding client but don’t currently have a NEO login, contact our team and we’ll be happy to help.

NEO provides access to a range of useful shipment information and tools, and CO₂ emission reporting is another way the platform can support your day-to-day supply chain management.

NEO CONTACT
NEO INFORMATION

Supply Chain Cyber Security Is Becoming a Sourcing Decision

For years, supply chain cyber security sat with the IT department. It was a matter of firewalls, patches, and password policies — important, certainly, but rarely something that shaped where a company bought its equipment or how it structured its vendor relationships. That separation is closing. Proposed changes to UK law would give ministers the power to restrict which suppliers companies in critical sectors are allowed to buy from, turning a security question into a procurement question with direct consequences for sourcing, lead times, and landed cost.

What Is Being Proposed

The UK government has put forward amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill that would allow it to require additional security measures from companies operating in critical sectors including energy, healthcare, and telecommunications. Those measures could extend to a phased withdrawal from designated vendors, or an outright prohibition on acquiring technology from them. The amendments remain subject to parliamentary approval.

The reasoning behind them is a familiar one to anyone who has looked closely at how modern attacks unfold. Attackers rarely go through the front door of a large, well-defended organization. They go through a smaller supplier with weaker controls and inherited access — the soft point in an otherwise hardened chain. Baroness Liz Lloyd, the cyber security minister, has described the new powers as a way for government to act before a threat materializes rather than only after the damage is done. The proposals arrive alongside repeated warnings from the National Cyber Security Centre that companies need to do more.

The bill’s existing provisions add reporting obligations on top of vendor controls. Regulated companies would need to notify the NCSC of significant attacks within 24 hours and file a fuller incident report within 72 hours, with financial penalties available where a company fails to meet a framework covering matters such as data protection and staff training.

Where the Sourcing Pressure Comes In

The practical difficulty is concentration. Certain categories of equipment come overwhelmingly from a small number of origins — solar panels are the clearest example, with more than 90 percent of global manufacturing based in China, and batteries and electric vehicles following a similar pattern. A rule that narrows the approved vendor list in those categories does not create alternative suppliers. It redirects demand toward a smaller, more expensive, and often slower field.

One energy sector executive summarized the arithmetic bluntly: alternatives exist, but they cost more and take longer. That is the shape of the problem for anyone planning capital projects or replenishment cycles. Substitution is possible. It is rarely quick and rarely cheap.

What This Means in Practice

Companies that may fall within scope have some groundwork worth doing now, well before the bill completes its passage.

Map the chain past tier one. Vendor restrictions apply to components and subassemblies, not only to the name on the purchase order. Knowing what sits three levels down is the difference between a manageable adjustment and an emergency one.

Model the classification consequences. A change of supplier is frequently a change of origin, and a change of origin affects duty rates, preferential treatment eligibility, and the documentation you need to substantiate a claim. A sourcing decision made purely on availability can create a customs problem that surfaces months later.

Build lead time into the plan. If qualifying an alternative vendor takes six months, that clock should start before a restriction is announced, not after.

Keep the paper trail. Demonstrating diligence over supplier selection is becoming part of the compliance record, not just good internal practice.

Supply chain cyber security regulation is heading toward the same place trade compliance already occupies: a discipline where the decisions get made early, the documentation matters, and the cost of reacting late is considerably higher than the cost of preparing.

If you would like to review how a change in sourcing origin would affect your classification, duty exposure, or entry documentation, our team is available to work through it with you.

EU Packaging Regulation: A New Layer of Compliance

The EU packaging regulation entered into application on August 12, replacing a framework that had governed the bloc since the 1990s. For anyone moving consumer goods into Europe, this is worth reading carefully — because it introduces compliance obligations that attach to the packaging itself, not just to the product inside it or the entry paperwork that accompanies it.

Why Brussels Rewrote the Rules

The original directive was written before e-commerce, subscription boxes, and single-serve convenience formats reshaped how goods reach consumers. Packaging waste across the bloc has climbed more than 20% over the past decade, and packaging now accounts for roughly 40% of Europe’s plastic consumption. On a per-person basis, Europeans generate about 180 kilograms of packaging waste annually. Eurostat data from 2023 shows just over 35 kilograms of that figure was fossil-fuel-derived plastic, with only 42% of packaging waste recycled.

Beyond the environmental case, EU officials have framed the reliance on oil-derived packaging as a supply chain vulnerability — one that becomes uncomfortably visible when petroleum markets are disrupted.

What Applies Right Now

Two obligations took effect immediately.

The first sets EU-wide ceilings on PFAS — the class of synthetic compounds often called “forever chemicals” — in packaging that comes into contact with food. These substances have long been used to make takeaway containers, pizza boxes, and bakery papers resist grease and moisture. They also resist breaking down in the environment, accumulating in soil, water, and the food chain. Research has associated PFAS exposure with several cancers, kidney disease, immune dysfunction, complications during pregnancy, and developmental harm in infants.

The second requirement is traceability. Manufacturers must now be able to supply information allowing authorities to identify where a given piece of packaging originated if a question arises. Practically speaking, that means the documentation trail behind your packaging needs to be as solid as the trail behind your goods.

The Deadlines Further Out

A standardized EU sorting label arrives in 2028, and the Commission plans to open a consultation on harmonized label design later this year.

The heavier obligations land in 2030: packaging must be recyclable in a way that is economically viable, certain single-use formats will be prohibited, reuse targets take effect, limits will apply to excess void space inside shipments, and deposit-return systems for cans and plastic bottles become mandatory. The bloc is targeting a 5% reduction in packaging waste by 2030 against a 2018 baseline, widening to 15% by 2040.

Waste exports are tightening in parallel. A separate law governing shipments of plastic waste out of the EU came into force in May, aimed at ensuring material sent abroad is genuinely processed rather than dumped.

Enforcement Will Start Soft — Which Is Not the Same as Optional

EU officials have signaled that member states should lead with warnings rather than penalties in the early stages, and that non-compliant goods should not be pulled from shelves immediately. That grace period is real, but it is a window to get compliant, not a reason to defer the work. Enforcement posture hardens as deadlines approach, and packaging redesign is not a quick turnaround for most supply chains.

What This Means for Your Business

If you export into the EU, the practical first steps are straightforward: confirm with your packaging suppliers whether PFAS are present in any food-contact materials, and make sure you can produce source documentation on demand. If your packaging is sourced through a contract manufacturer or a third-party fulfillment partner, that visibility may not exist yet — and that gap is worth closing before an authority asks.

Regulatory requirements like these increasingly sit alongside classification, valuation, and origin as part of the compliance picture for goods crossing borders. Future Forwarding works with importers and exporters on both sides of the Atlantic to keep documentation aligned with shifting requirements. Contact our team to review how these changes affect your shipments into Europe.

Panama Canal Draft Limits Trigger New Carrier Surcharges

Ocean carriers have begun adding hundreds of dollars per container to Asia–US East and Gulf Coast bookings, and the reason sits several thousand miles from either coast. Falling water levels in Gatun Lake have prompted the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) to tighten Panama Canal draft limits through the summer, and the cost of that decision is now arriving on shippers’ invoices.

What the Canal Has Actually Restricted

The ACP has moved in measured steps rather than one dramatic cut. Maximum authorized draft at the Neopanamax Locks was lowered to 49.5 feet in early July, reduced again to 49 feet on July 24, and is scheduled to drop to 48.5 feet on August 15. The authority has been explicit that these are precautionary water management measures, and that further adjustments depend on rainfall and lake projections in the weeks ahead.

The driver is meteorological. Forecasters have raised the probability of a significant El Niño event sharply since spring, and the ACP has signaled that if conditions worsen, restrictions could extend beyond draft to the number of daily booking slots — the mechanism that caused the most disruption during the last drought.

Why Half a Foot Costs Hundreds of Dollars

Draft is a proxy for weight. Every inch a vessel cannot sit lower in the water represents cargo that must come off, be transshipped, or be routed another way. A large container ship gives up meaningful capacity for each incremental reduction, and the fixed cost of the voyage does not fall with it. Carriers recover that gap through surcharges.

Those surcharges are now public. CMA CGM introduced a $320 per TEU charge on cargo moving to the US East and Gulf Coasts, effective July 25, with a lower charge applied to Central American and Caribbean destinations. Hapag-Lloyd has announced $130 per TEU on Far East–North America cargo transiting the canal from August 15. MSC has set $100 per TEU on Asia to US East and Gulf Coast shipments, applying to cargo gated in from August 19. Additional announcements are widely expected.

The spread between those figures is worth noting. Carriers are not working from a common formula, which means two shipments on comparable routings can carry materially different canal-related costs depending on the carrier contracted.

Context Matters: This Is Not 2023

During the last drought cycle, draft fell into the low 40s and daily transits were cut, producing queues, auction premiums, and schedule failures that rippled through peak season. The current restrictions are considerably milder, and the canal has reported strong transit volumes and revenue through the first nine months of its fiscal year.

That context should inform planning without inviting complacency. The risk is not today’s draft figure. It is the possibility of booking slot reductions later in the year, which would affect schedule reliability far more than cargo weight limits do.

Three practical steps apply to US and UK shippers alike.

Audit your exposure by carrier and lane. Surcharges vary widely, and the effective dates differ. Cargo gating in around mid-August may cross a threshold that cargo moving a week earlier does not.

Build the charge into landed cost, not just freight cost. For lower-value, high-volume goods, a few hundred dollars per container can change duty-inclusive margins and pricing decisions further downstream.

Review routing alternatives before you need them. US West Coast discharge with inland rail, Suez routings for certain origins, or adjusted sailing schedules all carry trade-offs in transit time and cost. Those comparisons are far more useful modeled in advance than negotiated under pressure.

Panama Canal draft limits are, for now, a cost issue rather than a capacity crisis. Whether that holds through the fall depends on rainfall the industry cannot control — which is precisely why the planning should happen now.

Future Forwarding’s ocean freight and customs teams are tracking carrier announcements and canal advisories daily. Contact us to review how these surcharges affect your specific lanes and to model alternative routings before the next round of restrictions takes effect.

Supply Chain Mapping Is Now a Legal Minefield — And Importers Are Caught in the Middle

Supply chain mapping has long been a legal obligation for companies sourcing from China — but a new conflict between US and Chinese law has made it one of the most complicated compliance challenges in international trade today.

The core problem is a direct conflict between US and Chinese law. On one side, the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) requires importers to prove that goods originating from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are not made with forced labor. The only way to do that is through thorough, multi-tier supply chain mapping and documentation. On the other side, China has passed two new regulations — known as Regulations 834 and 835 — that restrict foreign companies, governments, and individuals from investigating the origins of raw materials, components, and finished goods produced in China. In other words: US law demands transparency, and Chinese law prevents it.

What the UFLPA Actually Requires

Under the UFLPA, any goods or materials originating from Xinjiang are presumed to be made with forced labor unless the importer can prove otherwise with clear and convincing evidence. That presumption applies regardless of whether the importer is aware of the connection — which is why supply chain mapping across every production tier is now a compliance necessity rather than a risk management exercise.

The industries most exposed are those with significant sourcing from China: apparel, textiles, cotton products, electronics, solar components, and agricultural goods such as tomatoes. For apparel importers specifically, the documentation requirement extends from cotton fields through processing, textile production, and manufacturing — every step of the way.

Importers who cannot provide sufficient evidence risk having their shipments detained, denied entry, returned to the country of origin, or destroyed under US Customs supervision.

China’s Response

China’s Regulations 834 and 835 were introduced in direct response to what Beijing views as extraterritorial overreach — the application of US law onto Chinese domestic industry. These regulations create an opaque legal shield around Chinese supply chains, making it difficult or impossible for foreign parties to conduct the kind of investigation that US compliance now requires.

China has also taken additional countermeasures, placing 10 US companies on an export control list and barring Chinese government agencies from purchasing products from 46 other US companies. The regulatory environment is becoming increasingly adversarial, and importers are caught squarely in the middle.

The Practical Reality for Importers

The conflict creates a situation with no clean solution. Companies that source from China — particularly from regions with known ties to Xinjiang supply chains — face a binary outcome: either they can document their supply chain sufficiently to satisfy US Customs, or they cannot. If they cannot, their goods will not enter the United States.

For many businesses, this is accelerating decisions around supplier diversification, nearshoring, and regional sourcing. Reducing dependence on Chinese supply chains for high-risk product categories is no longer just a resilience strategy — it is increasingly a compliance strategy as well.

What Companies Should Be Doing Now

Regardless of where your supply chain currently sits, there are steps every importer should be taking:

Invest in supply chain mapping and traceability tools that can document supplier networks across multiple tiers. Conduct regular compliance audits and strengthen supplier due diligence, particularly for goods with any potential connection to Xinjiang. Work with a licensed customs broker who understands UFLPA requirements and can help ensure your documentation meets the standard required by US Customs.

The regulatory environment between the US and China is not improving in the near term. Supply chain mapping is no longer optional — and for many importers, the time to act is now, before a shipment is detained rather than after.

Future Forwarding is closely monitoring developments in forced labor compliance and trade policy. If you have questions about how these regulations affect your imports, reach out to your Future Forwarding representative today.

ATA Carnets Have Gone Digital:

What the 2026 Changes Mean for Your Business

If your business regularly sends goods overseas for exhibitions, trade shows, product demonstrations or temporary projects, you’ll probably already be familiar with ATA Carnets. For years, they have simplified temporary exports by removing the need to pay import duties and taxes in every country you visit.

Now, the system has undergone its biggest change in decades.

From 1 June 2026, the UK joined the first phase of the international eATA Carnet programme. This introduced digital processing for ATA Carnets alongside the European Union, Norway and Switzerland. While the purpose of an ATA Carnet remains exactly the same, the way it is presented and processed at customs has changed significantly.

If you’re planning temporary exports, here’s what you need to know.

What is an ATA Carnet?

An ATA Carnet is an international customs document that allows goods to be temporarily exported and imported without paying customs duties or import VAT. However, this applies only if the goods are returned within the carnet’s validity period.

It acts as a passport for goods. As a result, it makes temporary international movements much simpler than completing full customs declarations every time a shipment crosses a border.

ATA Carnets are commonly used for:

  • Exhibition and trade show equipment
  • Professional equipment used overseas
  • Commercial samples
  • Demonstration products
  • Sporting equipment
  • Musical instruments
  • Film and television production equipment

Rather than paying import charges in every country you visit, the carnet guarantees those duties while the goods remain temporarily abroad. Once the goods return home, the carnet is discharged. Therefore, no import duties become payable, provided all customs procedures have been correctly completed.

For businesses attending multiple exhibitions or visiting several countries with the same equipment, an ATA Carnet can save both time and considerable expense.

Who typically needs an ATA Carnet?

Many industries rely on ATA Carnets without realising just how often they use them.

Typical users include:

What’s changed?

Until recently, ATA Carnets were entirely paper-based.

Every movement required customs officers to stamp the carnet booklet and remove the relevant voucher as goods entered or left each country. Additionally, losing the booklet or missing a customs endorsement could lead to lengthy investigations. In some cases, this resulted in unexpected customs claims.

That process is now changing.

From 1 June 2026, the UK became one of the first countries to adopt the new eATA Carnet system. Together with the European Union, Norway and Switzerland, customs authorities can now process carnet movements digitally.

Instead of relying solely on a paper booklet, carnet holders use the official ATA Carnet app to present a secure QR code at customs. Therefore, customs officers scan the code, allowing each import, export and re-export movement to be recorded electronically.

This creates a digital record of the journey while reducing paperwork and improving visibility throughout the temporary export process.

The International Chamber of Commerce intends to extend the digital system worldwide over the coming years. Furthermore, global implementation is expected by 2028.

What does this mean for your business?

The good news is that the purpose of an ATA Carnet hasn’t changed.

If your goods qualify today, they’ll continue to qualify under the new digital system. The temporary admission rules, eligibility requirements and responsibility for returning the goods all remain exactly the same.

The difference is how those movements are managed.

Businesses should now expect to:

  • Use the official ATA Carnet app when travelling between participating countries
  • Present a QR code to customs instead of relying solely on paper documentation
  • Ensure the person accompanying the goods understands the digital customs process
  • Confirm that every customs crossing is correctly recorded electronically

As more countries adopt the eATA system, digital processing will gradually become the standard method for temporary exports.

How does this affect freight forwarders?

While the process becomes more digital, planning remains just as important.

As experienced freight forwarders, we now help clients prepare for both the customs requirements and the digital procedures before goods leave the UK.

This includes confirming whether the destination country supports eATA processing and ensuring the correct documentation has been arranged. It also involves advising who should present the carnet at customs. In addition, we help businesses understand how the digital process works before they travel.

For companies attending overseas exhibitions or sending valuable equipment abroad, a little preparation can prevent costly delays at the border.

What should you do now?

If your business uses ATA Carnets, there is no need to worry, but there are a few practical steps worth taking.

  • Ensure the employee or representative travelling with the goods is familiar with the ATA Carnet app. In addition, they should understand what will happen at customs.
  • Review any upcoming temporary exports and check whether your destination is participating in the eATA programme.
MORE INFORMATION

New CBP Mail Shipment Requirements Take Effect July 24

New CBP mail shipment requirements are coming — and if your business imports goods through international mail, the July 24 effective date is closer than it may seem.

CBP has published an interim final rule requiring additional data for mail shipments valued at $2,500 or less that enter through the agency’s informal entry process. Starting July 24, importers or their brokers must provide a description of the merchandise, all 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes, and quantity and weight where those figures affect applicable duties. This information must be submitted by the seventh day of the month following the shipment’s arrival.

Why This Is Happening

The new rule is part of a broader push by the U.S. Administration to bring mail imports under the same scrutiny as other goods entering the United States. The de minimis exemption — which previously allowed low-value shipments to enter with minimal documentation — was eliminated last year. Postal shipments now face duties equal to the current 10% global tariff, and these new data requirements are designed to ensure those duties are actually collected.

CBP estimates the change will generate more than $100 million in additional annual duty revenue.

Who Needs to File — and Who Can

The party submitting the required data must be an owner, purchaser, or a licensed customs broker. Currently, about half of qualified filers are brokers. If you or your foreign postal operator does not already have a broker relationship, you will need to establish one before the rule takes effect. CBP has acknowledged this will take time and has noted it as a compliance burden for affected parties.

An Electronic Entry Test Is Also Coming

Separately, CBP will launch a voluntary test program called Entry Type 13, available from September 22. Open to shipments valued at $2,500 or less, the test allows importers and brokers to submit additional data — including postal tracking numbers and recipient information — electronically. CBP has described it as part of a phased approach to bring mail imports into full parity with all other imported goods.

What This Means for Your Business

If you import through international mail channels and do not currently work with a licensed customs broker, now is the time to act. The new CBP mail shipment requirements leave limited time to identify a broker, establish a relationship, and ensure your data submission process is in place.

Future Forwarding is here to help you navigate these changes. If you have questions about how the new requirements apply to your shipments, reach out to your Future Forwarding representative today.

DOJ Appeals IEEPA Tariff Refund Order

What the DOJ’s Appeal Means for IEEPA Tariff Refunds

If your business has been tracking IEEPA tariff refunds, a new legal development adds a layer of uncertainty to an already complex process — and importers should understand what it means for them.

The Department of Justice has filed a formal appeal challenging part of the Court of International Trade’s order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue universal IEEPA tariff refunds. The appeal does not halt the refund process entirely, but it does narrow the legal ground the government believes it must stand on — and that distinction matters.

What’s Being Appealed — and What Isn’t

The Court of International Trade originally ordered CBP to return funds paid on tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), following a Supreme Court decision invalidating those levies. The court’s initial directive covered unprocessed or unfinalized entries, but was later expanded to include finally liquidated entries.

It is this expansion — the universal refund order covering all finalized entries — that the DOJ is contesting. The agency argues that the court does not have jurisdiction to issue a blanket order covering every importer. In its view, the court may only mandate refunds for parties that have filed individual lawsuits.

This is a procedural and jurisdictional argument, not a challenge to the underlying principle that IEEPA tariffs were unlawful.

The Refund Portal Is Still Operating

CBP’s dedicated refund system, known as CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries), continues to process returns. As of late May, the portal had delivered approximately $20.6 billion in refunds and was on track to issue $85 billion in total.

However, CAPE does not yet have the technical capability to process finally liquidated entries — the very category at the center of the DOJ’s appeal. CBP is developing this functionality, and the Court of International Trade has issued a temporary stay on its universal order while that work continues.

Court Scrutiny Is Intensifying

The court is clearly monitoring progress closely. It has ordered CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear at a July 9 hearing to account for the agency’s compliance with the refund directive. The DOJ has pushed back on this as well, filing an emergency motion to block or delay Scott’s appearance, arguing that compelling testimony from a senior agency head sets a problematic precedent under separation-of-powers principles.

Whether or not Scott ultimately appears, the hearing itself signals that the court expects timely, demonstrable progress — not open-ended delays.

What This Means for Importers

For most businesses already receiving refunds through CAPE, day-to-day operations are unlikely to be immediately affected. The appeal primarily concerns how broadly the refund obligation extends to finalized entries — not whether refunds are owed at all.

That said, importers with finally liquidated entries should be aware that their path to a refund may depend on the outcome of this appeal, or on whether they have — or need to — file individual legal claims.

Future Forwarding is continuing to monitor these developments closely. As always, we will not alter how we clear your shipments until formally authorized to do so in writing by U.S. Customs. If you have questions about how these developments affect your specific entries, please reach out to your Future Forwarding representative.

For a call back get in touch:

Contact Us

Ⓒ Future Forwarding 2026. All rights reserved.
Terms of use | Privacy policy | Sitemap | Web Design by Cocoonfx