News / US importer crackdown bid could trigger shift in ecommerce logistics

Photo: © Almas Hafeez, Dtreamstime.com

A new US Senate bill, aimed at tightening rules on who can act as an ‘importer of record’, could have consequences far beyond customs compliance.

It could potentially reshape the cross-border ecommerce model that has helped fuel the boom in transpacific air cargo. 

Introduced on 5 March by Senator Bill Cassidy, the Securing Accountability in Foreign Entries Act would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 and impose stricter requirements on importers of record, including requiring them to maintain “a genuine physical presence” in the US and pay duties directly from verified US bank accounts.  

On paper, the bill appears to be a technical enforcement measure. In practice, however, it targets a key structural feature of global ecommerce logistics: the ability of sellers overseas to import goods into the US without a meaningful domestic footprint. 

The legislation is designed to address what lawmakers see as a growing problem in US trade enforcement: the use of nominal or “non-resident” importers that assume legal responsibility for shipments, but have little real presence in the country.

The proposal would move the US closer to regimes such as in the EU, China, and Brazil, where importers typically need a domestic presence rather than operating as non-resident entities. 

Under the proposal, an importer of record’s ‘genuine US presence’ would include a physical location and US-based personnel. Mailbox addresses, virtual offices, and other proxy arrangements would not qualify.  

Supporters argue this would make it easier for US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enforce duties and penalties when importers fail to comply with trade rules. But critics warn the implications could reach far beyond compliance procedures. 

One immediate issue concerns DDP (delivered duty-paid) shipping arrangements, widely used in cross-border ecommerce. 

Under DDP terms, the overseas seller handles the import process and pays duties. But if foreign companies face restrictions on acting as importers of record, such arrangements could become more difficult to maintain. 

Many direct-to-consumer retailers currently rely on these structures when shipping individual parcels to US customers. If the bill becomes law, some of those models may need to be reworked. 

The sector most exposed to the shift could be air freight. 

Platforms such as Temu and Shein – along with thousands of marketplace sellers – rely heavily on air cargo to move goods directly from overseas fulfilment centres to US consumers. If overseas sellers are required to establish US-based importing entities or partner with domestic importers, the economics of direct cross-border shipping could change. 

In practice, that may encourage a shift towards bulk imports followed by domestic fulfilment – shipping goods into the US in larger consignments before distributing them through local warehouses. 

For the air cargo sector, that could translate into less direct parcel traffic on transpacific routes and more cargo moving through traditional freight channels or ocean shipping. 

The bill also proposes raising minimum continuous import bond requirements to $100,000. 

That provision has already sparked debate among trade professionals. Some argue higher bonds are necessary to protect US revenue in an era of higher tariffs, while others say risk-based pricing should remain the domain of insurers rather than regulators. 

Either way, higher bond thresholds would increase the financial barrier for smaller or newly established importers. 

Despite the strong rhetoric surrounding ecommerce imports in Washington, the bill’s chances of becoming law remain uncertain. 

The bill tackles a different part of the same issue as the debate over de minimis. While ending the $800 exemption targets the duty-free entry of low-value parcels, the Cassidy proposal focuses on who is legally responsible for the import. Together, the measures would further erode the model that has allowed overseas sellers to ship directly to US consumers through cross-border parcel networks. 

While there is bipartisan concern about the growth of low-value imports, legislative action in trade policy tends to move slowly, particularly when competing interests, from retailers and logistics providers to express carriers, are involved. 

The Cassidy bill may ultimately form part of a broader policy push rather than pass in its current form. 

Even so, its introduction sends a clear message: US policymakers are increasingly focused on the mechanics of cross-border ecommerce supply chains and the accountability of those responsible for imports. 

For the logistics industry, and particularly for the air cargo sector that has benefited so strongly from the surge in cross-border parcel traffic, the bill could signal the start of a structural shift.