THE VIGILANT VIGIL – 33rd EDITION

Welcome, visitor, to the Vigil. Here you will find a summation of current global trade changes and regulatory updates. We aim to deliver helpful insights in a timely and relevant manner, to help you remain vigilant in an ever-evolving trade environment.

 

Vigil Viewpoint:

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE… AND IT HAS RECEIPTS

What happens when the evidence tells a different story?

Last week, I confessed to committing what may be an unforgivable marital offense: auditing my husband’s family tree and discovering that the Hennessey family’s alleged connection to the famous cognac dynasty was, shall we say, a bit lacking in supporting documentation. Martin had a wonderful family history, complete with Irish estates, distinguished ancestors and a potential claim to some very expensive spirits. Unfortunately, once I started asking for evidence, a few of those branches fell off the tree.

My message was that we cannot simply accept a good story as fact. We need to research, validate and document the claims we make, whether we’re tracing family ancestry or declaring country of origin, classification, valuation or preferential tariff eligibility.

Well, apparently the universe wasn’t finished with that lesson. This week, the headlines provided a rather spectacular sequel.

Last week, we talked about what happens when you DON’T have the evidence. This week, let’s talk about what happens when the evidence exists, but you really wish nobody would find it.

Two stories out of Washington caught my attention. The first concerns newly appointed White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia, whose legal credentials have come under public scrutiny. Zacharia earned a law degree from Pepperdine University and worked in international legal environments, including China. However, journalists investigating her professional background have reported that she did not pass the California bar examination and have been unable to substantiate claims that she was licensed to practice law in the United States. Questions have consequently arisen about the distinction between holding a law degree, performing legal work and representing oneself as a licensed attorney.

Now, before anyone gets excited, this isn’t a political commentary about the administration, and I am certainly not questioning the value of a law degree. It’s a rather interesting example of how a statement that sounds perfectly reasonable can convey something quite different from what the underlying evidence supports. Graduating from law school is an accomplishment. Being admitted to practice law is a separate credential. The distinction matters, particularly when professional qualifications are being presented to the public.

The second story involves Kimberly Guilfoyle, who resigned as U.S. Ambassador to Greece following reports alleging improper financial requests and potential conflicts of interest. She has denied wrongdoing, and allegations are not findings of guilt. Nevertheless, the reporting illustrates another uncomfortable reality: financial relationships, communications and transactions can become the subject of scrutiny long after the individuals involved might have assumed those activities would remain private.

And that brings us back to global trade compliance. Because whether the subject is a professional credential, a government official’s financial dealings or an importer claiming preferential duty treatment, the difference between what we say and what the evidence shows can become a very expensive problem.

We live in an extraordinary information environment. Government databases, corporate registries, ownership records, shipping histories, customs filings, commercial documents, public reporting and increasingly sophisticated analytical tools allow investigators to connect information that once lived in completely separate places. AI can help identify inconsistencies, recognize patterns and prioritize potential risks across enormous volumes of data. It doesn’t magically establish the truth, and it certainly isn’t infallible, but it can make discrepancies considerably easier to discover.

That should make every trade compliance professional just a little nervous. Not because we’re all hiding something, but because our companies generate an astonishing amount of evidence every day, often without realizing that the information may contradict the compliance conclusions being reported elsewhere.

Consider a company that declares an HTS classification based on a particular product characteristic. The Customs entry says one thing, but the engineering drawings, technical specifications or purchasing correspondence tell a different story. Perhaps the classification was simply wrong. Perhaps somebody made an assumption and never checked. Or perhaps an employee identified the discrepancy months ago, but the concern was ignored because correcting it would increase duties.

Those are very different circumstances, and the distinction matters.

The same is true of country of origin. A supplier provides a certificate identifying one country, while manufacturing records, purchase orders or internal correspondence suggest substantial production occurred somewhere else. A company claims USMCA eligibility but cannot demonstrate how the product satisfies the applicable rule of origin. An importer reports a transaction value that omits potentially dutiable assists or royalties, even though the accounting department has records of those payments.

Then there’s the supply chain itself. A company may proudly announce its commitment to ethical sourcing while purchasing products whose upstream materials or production conditions have never been meaningfully investigated. Worse, imagine discovering that someone within the organization had raised concerns about forced labor, unsafe working conditions or questionable subcontractors, only to have those warnings dismissed because the supplier was inexpensive, dependable and good for quarterly profits.

Not knowing something can create compliance risk. Knowing something and choosing to ignore it can create an entirely different level of risk.

This week’s Trade Buzz tackles anti-boycott, anti-bribery and anti-corruption compliance, and it’s a perfect illustration. A well-intentioned salesperson wants to close a deal. A customer includes a questionable boycott-related clause in a purchase order, requests an unusual payment arrangement or suggests that a little financial encouragement might help move things along. The salesperson may see it as customer service, not a compliance issue. Perhaps someone notices the red flag but decides not to delay the shipment or jeopardize the contract.

Years ago, discovering that problem might have required someone to locate a particular contract or email. Today, a properly authorized investigation may be able to review and cross-reference large volumes of contracts, communications, payment records and transaction data much more efficiently. Suddenly, the question isn’t just whether an improper action occurred. It’s also who knew, when they knew, what they did about it and whether the company had controls designed to prevent it.

And yes, the government is paying attention.

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have made trade fraud enforcement a significant priority. DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force is pursuing matters involving customs violations, duty evasion and other forms of trade fraud, including cases brought under the False Claims Act and, where warranted, criminal statutes. These enforcement mechanisms have different legal standards, and an honest mistake does not automatically become fraud. But a company’s knowledge, internal communications, corrective actions and response to identified problems can be critically important in determining its exposure.

There’s also a practical lesson here that I wish more executives understood: finding your own problem is usually far better than having the government find it for you.

That doesn’t mean discovering an error gives you a free pass, or that every voluntary disclosure eliminates penalties. It means that promptly investigating a concern, preserving records, correcting errors, identifying root causes, taking appropriate personnel or disciplinary action, improving controls and evaluating available disclosure procedures can make a meaningful difference. In appropriate circumstances, voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation may qualify for favorable consideration under applicable enforcement policies.

Of course, none of this works if Compliance is treated as the department whose job is to say no after everyone else has already said yes.

We need Sales, Purchasing, Engineering, Finance, Logistics, Legal, Compliance and executive leadership to understand that the records they create and the decisions they make are all part of the same story. We need technology that connects those records, identifies anomalies and supports meaningful review. And we need a corporate culture where employees can raise concerns without being treated as obstacles to revenue.

Which brings me back to one of my favorite professional expressions: AUDIT. AUDIT. AUDIT.

Audit the classification. Audit the origin. Audit the valuation. Audit the supplier and its ownership. Audit the documents supporting your FTA claims. Review the contracts, unusual payment requests and correspondence that might indicate anti-boycott or anti-corruption concerns. Most importantly, audit the processes and decisions that produced those declarations in the first place.

Don’t just ask whether the paperwork exists. Ask whether it tells the truth. And don’t stop when you find documentation supporting your preferred conclusion. Look for the information that might contradict it.

Last week, my husband’s family history taught us that an absence of evidence can allow a wonderful but questionable story to flourish for generations. This week, the news reminds us that the presence of contradictory evidence can bring an entirely different story crashing down.

I suppose that’s the rather uncomfortable beauty of living in an increasingly connected world. The information is out there. The tools for finding it are improving. And whether you’re a government official, a corporate executive, a salesperson or a Trade Nerd, you may eventually have to explain why your version of events doesn’t quite match the records.

So, tell the truth. Document the truth. Investigate the uncomfortable bits. And when you find a problem, fix the bloody thing before somebody else finds it for you.

Because in global trade compliance, the truth isn’t merely out there.

It has receipts.

Let’s veer into this week’s Vigil, shall we?

 

---

 

In this volume, we will explore:

• CSMS updates
• Updates to the Federal Registry, for both policy and product
• Cooperative call outs to other blogs
• Where to find us
• Be sure to check out our weekly edition of Trade Buzz

 

Let’s veer into it, shall we?

**The following contains links and citations from multiple US government agencies and other credible sources. Vigilant GTS LLC is not the source material but simply compilating the information.**

 

---

 

CSMS Updates

**The following are short summaries of the actual information provided by CSMS. To stay up to date with announcements and news, please subscribe at: https://www.cbp.gov/webform/subscribe-receive-cbp-access-updates **

 

 

CSMS # 70197855 – Harmonized System Update (HSU) 2626

Harmonized System Update (HSU) 2626 was created on October 9, 2026, and contains 4 harmonized tariff records and 14 ABI records.

HSU 2626 contains Section 232 updates. For more information, please see https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2026-07987/procedures-for-submissions-by-certain-steel-and-aluminum-producers-committing-to-new-u-s-steel-or-aluminum-production-to.

CSMS # 70197855 – Harmonized System Update (HSU) 2626

  

---

 

Federal Register Updates

**These are just a sampling of the many updates and changes made by the Federal Register. For a more comprehensive list, or to subscribe to the updates yourself, follow the link below, and never miss a thing.**

https://www.federalregister.gov

 

 

Rules

Iran-Related Determination

FR Document: 2026-20839 Citation: 91 FR 64758	PDF Page 64758 (1 page) Permalink
Abstract: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing a sector determination pursuant to a January 10, 2020 Executive Order. The determination was previously issued on OFAC’s website.

 

 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews:

United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement:

Binational Panel Decision

FR Document: 2026-20894 Citation: 91 FR 65166	PDF Page 65166 (1 page) Permalink
Abstract: On October 8, 2026, the Binational Panel issued its Decision on the Final Determination in the matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2017-2018 (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA- 2020-10.12-01). The Binational Panel affirmed in part and remanded in part the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Determination.

 

 

Notices

Guidance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regarding the Assessment of “U.S. Content” for Purposes of Implementing Tariffs

FR Document: 2026-20938 Citation: 91 FR 65162	PDF Page 65162 (1 page) Permalink
Abstract: This notice provides guidance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding the assessment of “U.S. content” for products of Canada and Mexico that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, for purposes of implementing tariffs pursuant to Proclamation 11032 of June 1, 2026.

 

 

Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.:

Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey

FR Document: 2026-20904 Citation: 91 FR 65253

PDF Pages 65253-65254 (2 pages) Permalink

Abstract: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet (“CAAS”) from Bahrain, India, and Turkey and the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on CASS from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or…

 

---

 

News from other esteemed sources:

 

 

ST&R

CBP Plan Tightens Low-Value Entries with Bonds and E-Filing

STR Trade Report • October 9, 2026

CBP proposed to modernize low-value imports by requiring electronic informal entry filings (type 11) for goods at or below $2,500 and creating a new electronic mail entry (type 13) that includes shipper identity and tracking data. Non-owner consignees (e.g., USPS, carriers, forwarders) would need to appoint a licensed customs broker as importer of record; all type 11/13 entries would require a bond with liquidated damages of the merchandise value or $1,000 for defaults, and mail not entered within 15 days would be deemed abandoned. The rule would also allow certain Chapter 99 goods up to $2,500 to use informal entry, potentially easing processing for tariff-affected shipments; comments are due Dec. 7.

Low-Value Import Requirements Would be Revised Under CBP Proposal | Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.

 

 

BAKER/MCKENZIE

OFAC Consolidates Penalty Provisions in 31 CFR Part 505
10/09/2026
The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC“) has restructured the location of penalty and enforcement procedure provisions within its regulations. On September 25, 2026, OFAC published a final rule…
Read more…

 

United States: DOJ’s New Fraud Division Corporate Enforcement Directive
10/12/2026
Baker McKenzie has recently published a client alert regarding the US Department of Justice’s New Fraud Division Corporate Enforcement Directive issued on October 1, 2026. Corporate fraud schemes involving tariff evasion, importation of goods or…
Read more…

 

What a Closer EU-Canada Relationship Could Mean for Trade

The European Union’s recent proposal to make Canada its first associate member has sparked discussion about what a closer relationship between the two economies could look like and what it could mean for businesses operating across borders….
Read more…

 

---

 

Vigilant Visitation Opportunities

We will be out and about at different trade and compliance related conferences around the country! We would love for you to come to say hello, so we can get to know you better! You can also connect with us at: https://vigilantgts.com/ or through our socials, on Facebook and LinkedIn!

 

 Where we will be:

 

ICPA Annual Spring Conference, March 7 – March 10, 2026

Orlando, Florida, USA

This will be the 25^th Anniversary Event for ICPA.

Jamie Adams will be presenting on “Networking for Career Development” and leading the Voices of Compliance Choir in multiple performances.

 

ICPA Global Trade Insights Conference, April 7 – April 8, 2026

Wembley, England

Jamie Adams will be presenting and also leading the choir.

 

---

 

TRADE BUZZ – Powered by Vigilant GTS

 

Trade never stands still—and neither do we.

Every Tuesday, we publish a new Trade Buzz episode highlighting timely developments in customs, tariffs, export controls, sanctions, compliance, and global trade. Our goal is simple: provide practical, easy-to-understand insights that help you stay informed and prepared.

This week’s topic: Anti-boycott, anti-bribery, and anti-corruption compliance involves more than screening business partners against government lists. Hidden risks can appear in contracts, purchase orders, letters of credit, shipping instructions, and payment requests. Effective compliance means recognizing red flags early, training employees across departments, reviewing transaction documents, understanding reporting obligations, and documenting decisions before seemingly routine business activities become serious regulatory violations.

🎥 Watch the latest Trade Buzz and read more:

https://vigilantgts.com/avoid-hidden-risks-in-global-trade-hb/

 

Missed a previous episode? Browse the complete Trade Buzz library at:
https://vigilantgts.com/blog/