On January 21, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) announced that its Forced Labor Portal is now live. This new online portal provides a single, centralized platform for importers to submit requests for review when their shipments are detained or excluded due to forced labor enforcement actions. By consolidating what was previously a patchwork of email and paper submission processes, the portal is intended to streamline communications and ensure that all forced labor-related documentation reaches the appropriate CBP officials for timely review.

Effective immediately, use of the Forced Labor Portal is mandatory for importers seeking to challenge or obtain exceptions for shipments held under U.S. forced labor laws. This includes filing admissibility review requests for goods detained under Withhold Release Orders (“WROs”) or forced labor findings, as well as review and exception requests related to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) and other forced labor sanctions.

From a compliance and litigation standpoint, the Forced Labor Portal helps formalize CBP’s administrative record for forced labor enforcement actions. Information submitted through the portal is expected to form the basis of CBP’s admissibility determinations and may be relevant in subsequent administrative protests or judicial review before the U.S. Court of International Trade. As a result, the accuracy, timing, and completeness of portal submissions carry heightened legal significance.

Importers should be mindful of compressed administrative and statutory timelines, particularly for UFLPA detentions, which generally provide a shorter window to submit rebuttal evidence than traditional WRO cases. Companies should ensure that internal procedures and document retention practices are aligned with the portal’s submission requirements.

CBP has published a Quick Reference Guide and an instructional video on its website to assist users with the transition to the portal.

Crowell & Moring LLP continues to monitor developments in forced labor prevention enforcement, including CBP’s implementation of the Forced Labor Portal, and its impact on industry.

On January 29th, 2026 U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced a Withhold Release Order on all shipments of coffee harvested by Finca Monte Grande, a Mexican coffee farm in Chiapas, Mexico. Effectively immediately CBP will detain all shipments of coffee harvested by Finca Monte Grande at any U.S. Port of Entry for probable forced labor violations.

As a result of CBP investigation into the Finca Monte Grande plantation, evidence demonstrates that workers are subject to 6 of the 11 indicators of forced labor including:

  • Abusive Working and Living Conditions
  • Abuse of Vulnerability
  • Debt Bondage
  • Excessive Overtime
  • Retention of Identify Documents
  • Withholding of Wages

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1307, any good that is produced wholly or in part with forced labor is prohibited from entering the United States and if violations are found, goods are subject to detention and seizure at the time of importation. A 2024 US Department of Labor report found that multiple industries in Mexico engage in child labor and forced labor violations with the agricultural sector being the largest risk. These affected commodities include coffee, melons, sugarcane and other agricultural products.

This is the first issued WRO in 2026 and emphasizes the importance of supply chain tracing by importers to ensure compliance with US regulations, avoiding unnecessary disruptions and costly delays. For more information on implementing due diligence and supply chain management, please feel free to reach out to Crowell & Moring for assistance.

From Wednesday, 28 January 2026, the UK Sanctions List (“UKSL”), published by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will act as the sole source of UK sanctions designations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (“SAMLA”). OFSI’s Consolidated List of Asset Freeze Targets (the “OFSI List”) and its search tool will not be updated beyond 28 January 2026.

The move to a single sanctions list is intended to simplify how businesses and individuals subject to sanction designations are identified, without altering sanctions scope or business obligations under UK law. The format of the UKSL will remain unchanged. This transition is a direct result of industry feedback received during a 2025 cross-government review, with an emphasis on removing the need to cross-reference multiple sources in hopes of reducing the risk of non-compliance.

Businesses should ensure that any internal systems which draw on the data from the OFSI List now draw from the UKSL. The UKSL will continue to be updated, and will be available in seven data formats.

In addition to these changes, any newly designated persons (DPs) subject to financial sanctions will no longer be assigned an OFSI Group ID; instead they will only have a Unique ID as an identifier. All UKSL formats will retain the historic OFSI Group ID data, meaning any historic Group IDs will continue to be valid for use.

On January 21, 2026, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the removal of Greek maritime company Altomare SA and its vessel, Kallista, from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Lists (SDN List).

OFAC originally designated Altomare SA and Kallista in November 2025 as part of a counter terrorism sanctions action targeting Iran’s “shadow fleet” and associated networks. OFAC alleged that Kallista had transported nearly four million barrels of Iranian oil on behalf of Sepehr Energy Jahan, a U.S.-sanctioned entity, between January and February 2025. Altomare SA publicly challenged OFAC’s allegations and sought review of the designation.

While OFAC never publicly comments on the reason for a delisting, Altomare SA stated that the company was the victim of maritime identity theft. It asserted that a U.S.-sanctioned vessel (Limas) posed as Kallista while trading to Iran, using fake AIS tracking signals and forged documents. OFAC did not confirm whether this information was the reason for OFAC’s decision to delist Altomare SA and Kallista.

This development underscores the increasing sophistication of sanctions evasion tactics, including spoofing and documentation fraud, particularly with respect to sanctioned vessels. Companies engaged in maritime trade should continue to closely monitor vessel activity (e.g., their AIS data, whether the timelines of their shipments make sense, whether the ports visited make sense), check for adverse information, and conduct due diligence screenings regularly. The delisting also highlights the value of prompt engagement and transparent communication with OFAC when parties believe they have been misidentified or otherwise designated based on inaccurate information.

Crowell & Moring will continue to monitor developments related to sanctions and their potential impact to industry.

On January 12, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelming passed (369-22) the Remote Access Security Act, modernizing U.S. export controls to address foreign adversaries’ remote access to controlled technologies through cloud computing services.  

Currently, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) does not consider the provision of cloud computing services to be exports. If passed into law, the bill (H.R. 2683) would modify the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to authorize BIS to regulate the remote access of items, in addition to the export, reexport, and transfer of items, as well as issue licenses and impose penalties related to remote access of export controlled items.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY-17), directly responds to concerns that Chinese entities have exploited cloud services to evade U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors and AI technologies by accessing computing power remotely through offshore data centers. It would apply U.S. export control restrictions to remote access and cloud-based exposure of controlled items—including advanced AI chips and semiconductors. In addition, the bill could significantly disrupt cloud computing companies’ compliance operations, which have been based on the understanding that the provision of cloud computing power does not qualify as an export for nearly twenty years.

The Remote Access Security Act would not become law until passage in the Senate and signature by the President. Senators David McCormick (R-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Chris Coons (D-DE) and the sponsors and cosponsors of the Senate version (S. 3519).

Key Takeaways

  • Companies should expect increased regulatory scrutiny of cloud service arrangements involving foreign users, particularly those with potential ties to China. Enhanced due diligence, customer verification, and transaction-level documentation procedures will be necessary for compliance.
  • The policy implications of this bill extend beyond traditional hardware manufacturers to cloud service providers, data center operators, and technology platforms offering remote computing capabilities.

On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) imposed a $1.5 million civil penalty on Exyte Management GmbH (“Exyte”), a Germany- headquartered engineering and procurement company, after its Shanghai affiliate Exyte Shanghai Ltd., (“Exyte China”) admitted to illegally causing the transfer of approximately $2.8 million in EAR-subject semiconductor equipment to Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (“SMIC”), China’s largest chip manufacturer. BIS designated SMIC on the Entity List in 2020, resulting in the prohibition of the export, reexport, and transfer of all items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to SMIC without specific authorization. Exyte must pay the penalty within 75 days to maintain its BIS export privileges.

The settlement continues an ongoing theme by BIS to enforce provisions of the EAR that prohibit activities other than exports, reexports, or transfers. Here, each of the violations were due to Exyte China “causing” another violation of the EAR, a penalty more akin to what is typical in a U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) settlement. It also reflects a continued focus on transactions that involve companies that are listed on the Entity List and on transactions that involve sensitive technologies, including semiconductors.

Between March 2021 and March 2022, Exyte China facilitated 13 in-country transfers totaling 884 items, including voltage sag protectors, programmable logic controllers, flowmeters, and pressure transmitters from Chinese suppliers to SMIC. All items were classified as EAR99 and used in chip fabrication facilities. Despite knowing the items were destined for SMIC, Exyte failed to recognize that an export license was required.

BIS cited Exyte’s “inadequate corporate compliance controls” as the root cause, noting the company “did not appreciate” that EAR licensing requirements applied to in-country transfers from Chinese distributors to Entity List customers. Exyte’s voluntary self-disclosure after discovering the violations influenced the settlement outcome.

This action highlights a critical compliance gap: in-country transfers within China remain subject to the EAR when U.S.-controlled items are destined for Entity List parties, even absent cross-border movement. Companies using local affiliates or distributors in China must ensure their compliance programs capture downstream transfers to restricted end users as BIS continues expanding Entity List designations in the semiconductor sector.

On January 6, 2026, China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) issued Announcement No. 1 [2026], imposing export controls on dual-use items destined for Japan. The measures took effect immediately, with no wind-down period.

Under the announcement, exports of all dual-use items from China are prohibited where the end user or end use: (i) involves Japanese military users; (ii) supports military end uses; or (iii) otherwise contributes to enhancing Japan’s military capabilities.

The announcement represents a further escalation in China’s use of export controls as a policy tool amid recent heightened tensions with Japan. Several aspects of the measures merit close attention from companies engaged in China-related supply chains.

First, the scope of the restrictions is intentionally broad. The inclusion of end users or end uses that could enhance Japan’s military capabilities expands the controls beyond traditional defense recipients. As a result, exports previously viewed as commercial or civilian in nature may now warrant additional scrutiny.

Second, companies should expect MOFCOM to increase its focus on end-use and end-user due diligence for exports involving Japan. Requests for more detailed certifications, supporting documentation, and transaction-level explanations are likely moving forward. Given the policy sensitivity and ambiguity surrounding the new criteria, exporters should also anticipate longer license review timelines and potential follow-up inquiries.

Third, the scope is not limited to direct exports from China to Japan. The controls also apply extraterritorially, covering transfers of Chinese-origin dual-use items through third countries, as well as in-country transfers, where the end users or end uses fall within the scope of these controls.

Crowell & Moring will continue to monitor developments related to Chinese export controls and their potential impact to industry.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury will cease issuing paper checks for all U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) refunds starting on February 6, 2026 according to an Interim Final Rule. A recipient may continue to receive paper checks provided that they have an approved waiver in place in accordance with 31 C.F.R. § 208. Individuals and firms seeking refunds for IEEPA tariffs are unlikely to fall under one of the specific cases provided for in 31 C.F.R. § 208.4(a). Therefore, importers seeking possible refunds of IEEPA tariffs in the event that the Supreme Court finds such tariffs unlawful should ensure that Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) refunds are authorized in the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) Portal.

ACH Refund is available to anyone who has a federally assigned taxpayer identification number, Social Security number, or CBP’s assigned number, and a U.S. bank account with U.S. bank routing number. Trade users can use the new ACH refund authorization tool in ACE to complete this process using the one-page guide provided by CBP.

The basic steps to ensure proper ACH refund receipt are as follows.

  1. Log in to your ACE Portal top account as TAO or as an authorized Proxy TAO or Trade Account User.
  2. Navigate to the importer sub-account view and locate the ACH Refund Authorization tab.
  3. View, add, and update U.S. bank information for receiving refunds

For more information on authorizing ACH refunds and other questions regarding ACE Portal functionality, please feel free to reach out to Crowell & Moring for assistance.

On December 19, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $54.4 million settlement with Ceratizit USA, LLC, a distributor of tungsten carbide products, resolving allegations that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by evading customs duties on products imported from China. This settlement is believed to be the largest ever customs-related FCA resolution, and this high-water mark underscores the government’s heightened enforcement focus on tariff evasion.

Click here to continue reading the full version of this alert.

As part of ongoing EU customs reform, the EU’s Council has agreed to remove the duty-free entry of goods valued below €150, formerly known as de minimis, to address the surge in low-value e-commerce shipments. Noticing large volumes imported from foreign marketplaces, the Netherlands proposed in January 2025 to remove simplifications for individual e-commerce packages and promote business-to-business (B2B) trade by placing goods in EU warehouses for further distribution.

The reform indicates that customs duties for all goods entering the EU will ultimately be managed via the EU Customs Data Hub. But as the Customs Data Hub is still under establishment and is not expected to be operational before 2028, an additional temporary customs levy has been introduced in the interim.

Temporary Customs Levy

On December 12, 2025, the EU’s Council decided to temporarily impose a €3 customs duty on all low-valued B2C parcels of €150 or less, starting July 1, 2026. This measure will apply until the EU imposes a “Union handling fee” in November 2026. However, the implementation should be linked to the EU Customs Data Hub, which, in all likelihood, will not be operational by the end of 2026. The additional duty aims at reducing e-commerce flows from China and improving product safety while preventing duty avoidance through parcel splitting.

The €3 charge applies to each item based on its 4-digit tariff headings. If items fall under different headings within a shipment, charges will apply per each heading. Guidance from the European Commission on this is still pending.

Union Handling Fee

The Council  revised the Union Customs Code after its June 2025 first reading to explicitly incorporate a Union handling fee for low-value e-commerce consignments. This was not included in the initial 2023 proposal. In February 2025, the need for a non-discriminatory handling fee was discussed by the European Commission.

The Council’s aim is “[t]o cover the increasing costs of ensuring the release of compliant goods for free circulation by checking the data provided, carrying out risk analysis, performing documentary and physical controls when needed.”

The Council plans for a fixed fee for items with the same tariff classification. While the amount is not finalised, reports suggest it may be around €2. The Union handling fee is anticipated to apply as from November 1, 2026.

Union Handling Fee: National Perspective

Several EU Member States are expediting the process since the Union handling fee cannot be applied until the proposal becomes the law. In the meantime, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Romania have introduced, or are finalising the introduction of, national handling fees, as follows:

  • France: An initial €2 fee for low-value parcels was raised to €5 following the upper Parliament’s first reading on December 15, 2025. Effective from January 1, 2026, this fee will apply until a Union-wide fee is decided. The final legislation is yet to be passed.
  • Netherlands: A €2 fee proposal for low-value consignments is set to begin on February 1, 2026. The fee applies per declaration line regardless of the quantity. It will be payable monthly and will be abolished once the Union handling fee is in place. Final approval is pending.
  • Romania: A logistics fee for sub-€150 goods was introduced, amounting to 25 lei (approximately €5), effective January 1, 2026. This fee is not tied to the Union handling fee and may continue concurrently (to be seen how).
  • Belgium: Reports indicate a €2 fee, but implementation details remain unclear.

Conclusions

The EU is now advancing fast towards abolishing the de minimis €150 duty-free regime, with imported goods already made subject to EU VAT. However, there is inconsistency among the various implementing measures. While the EU is responsible for customs, some Member States have pre-emptively introduced national fees. Not all Member States plan to follow suit, potentially undermining customs’ charges uniformity. One should keep in mind that Member States cannot unilaterally impose measures of commercial policy, which is centrally governed by the European Commission.

Moreover, as the Union customs reform is yet to become the law, modifications affecting the Union handling fee’s application are still possible.

It remains uncertain how the €3 temporary duty will interact with national measures, but the two will likely coexist until the Union handling fee’s full rollout.