De Minimis & Low-Value Shipments
USMCA Article 7.8 still names a US$800 threshold. U.S. duty-free de minimis treatment has been suspended since August 29, 2025 and is now written into the customs regulations, with a statutory repeal scheduled for July 1, 2027.
Last substantive update: July 26, 2026 · Next scheduled events: Entry Type 13 test opens, Sept. 22, 2026 · Postal exclusion compliance date, Oct. 22, 2026 · ← Back to Review Watch
No amendment to USMCA Article 7.8 has been identified as legally effective as of July 26, 2026. The treaty text still sets US$800 for the United States, US$117 for customs duties and US$50 for taxes for Mexico, and C$150 for customs duties and C$40 for taxes for Canada.
U.S. domestic practice is a different matter, and it has changed. Duty-free de minimis treatment has been suspended for shipments from all countries, including Canada and Mexico, since August 29, 2025. On June 24, 2026 that suspension moved from executive order into the customs regulations, and a new postal informal entry process took effect on July 24, 2026. Compliance obligations on this topic are live and dated, unlike most other areas of the tracker.
Everything a compliance professional needs before the details.
De minimis determines whether a low-value parcel clears with minimal data and no duty, or requires an entry with a 10-digit HTSUS classification and full duty payment. Every commercial shipment into the United States now sits in the second category regardless of value or origin, which changes cost, filing volume, classification accuracy requirements, and broker workload for e-commerce sellers, couriers, consolidators, and postal operators.
This page is also the tracker’s clearest example of a gap between treaty text and practice. Article 7.8 names a US$800 figure that U.S. practice no longer honors. ICPA tracks De Minimis as a monitoring topic rather than a confirmed Joint Review workstream, because it has not appeared on a published negotiating agenda, but the compliance consequences are immediate and the treaty question is unresolved.
Three separate legal tracks now govern U.S. de minimis treatment, and all three are confirmed. Executive: Executive Order 14324 of July 30, 2025 suspended duty-free de minimis treatment for all countries effective August 29, 2025; Executive Order 14388 of February 20, 2026 continued that suspension. Regulatory: on June 24, 2026 CBP published two interim final rules, at 91 FR 37789 and 91 FR 37801, writing the indefinite suspension into 19 CFR parts 10 and 145 and creating a new postal informal entry process effective July 24, 2026. Statutory: section 70531 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act repeals the commercial de minimis exception under 19 U.S.C. § 1321 effective July 1, 2027.
Canada has invoked Article 7.8.1(f) in a CUSMA Chapter 31 consultations request, but not in a standalone de minimis case. The provision appears as one of seven cited in Canada’s March 4, 2025 request concerning the U.S. IEEPA trafficking duties. Those IEEPA duties were terminated in February 2026 after the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. No panel has been requested. The U.S. declined to renew USMCA in its current form on July 1, 2026, and de minimis was not named on the published agenda for the third U.S.–Mexico bilateral round held July 21–23, 2026.
No comprehensive published U.S. legal defense to the Article 7.8.1(f) claim has been located. Mexico’s formal negotiating position on Article 7.8 has not been located. Canadian small-business stakeholders asked Global Affairs Canada to seek restored U.S. thresholds or new low-value carve-outs during the 2025 CUSMA consultations, but that is stakeholder input, not a government negotiating position. Whether any party will seek a panel, an amendment, or a Free Trade Commission interpretation has not been confirmed.
Possible outcomes include continued suspension with the treaty question unlitigated, restoration of duty-free treatment specifically for USMCA-originating shipments, a negotiated reciprocal reduction of the U.S. threshold using the mechanism Article 7.8 already contains, a Free Trade Commission interpretation of what “under normal circumstances” permits, or a trilateral low-value data framework conditioning simplified treatment on advance shipment and seller information. The July 1, 2027 statutory repeal constrains all of these: after that date, restoring duty-free low-value entry would require an act of Congress, not an executive or regulatory reversal.
This is the one tracker topic carrying an immediate-action status. The requirements below are in force or have fixed dates, and none of them depends on the outcome of the Joint Review.
- Confirm every low-value shipment is entering under a valid entry type with a 10-digit HTSUS classification and duty paid
- If you use the international mail channel, confirm a basic importation and entry bond is on file and the monthly duty worksheet process is operating
- Identify merchandise excluded from the postal informal entry process, including AD/CVD, quota, PGA-regulated, alcohol, tobacco, Chapter 98 and Chapter 99 goods, and FTA duty-free claims, and route it to formal entry or Entry Type 13 before Oct. 22, 2026
- Evaluate whether to join the voluntary Entry Type 13 test opening Sept. 22, 2026
- Reprice formerly duty-free lanes for the Section 301 forced-labor duties effective July 24, 2026, which now reach low-value shipments
- Confirm whether CUSMA preference can be claimed in your chosen channel, since postal and courier channels are reportedly not treated the same
Do not plan around restoration of duty-free treatment for Canadian or Mexican shipments, and do not build a compliance program around a trusted-shipper model that has not been formally proposed in government text.
Refund posture is worth tracking but not worth acting on yet. The Section 122 surcharge that applied from Feb. 24 to July 24, 2026, including on formerly de minimis shipments, is under appeal at the Federal Circuit. Preserve entry records for that window rather than filing on an assumption.
USMCA Article 7.8 requires each party, under normal circumstances, to provide duty- and tax-free treatment and simplified customs formalities for qualifying express shipments from another party below fixed amounts, while preserving each party’s ability to apply anti-circumvention controls and to continue regulating restricted or controlled goods. Article 7.8.2 separately provides for reduced formalities relative to formal entry for express shipments valued below US$2,500. The article also contains a reciprocity mechanism permitting the United States to apply to Mexican- or Canadian-origin express shipments a threshold no greater than the other party’s own.
The United States has moved away from that framework in three stages rather than one. Executive Order 14256 of April 2, 2025 ended de minimis for China and Hong Kong effective May 2, 2025. Executive Order 14324 of July 30, 2025 extended the suspension to all countries effective August 29, 2025. Congress then repealed the commercial exception outright in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, effective July 1, 2027. The June 24, 2026 interim final rules sit between the executive and statutory tracks, converting a revocable policy into a regulation and building the operational machinery, including a new postal informal entry process, that will still be needed after the statutory repeal.
The authority basis matters as much as the substance. When the Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, the administration terminated the IEEPA duties but expressly continued the de minimis suspension by separate order the same day. The June 2026 interim final rules ground the suspension in 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a) itself, reasoning that the administrative burden of the exemption now outweighs the revenue it forgoes. That shift narrows the argument that the suspension falls with the IEEPA tariffs, and it is the most consequential thing to understand about the June rules.
De Minimis is accordingly the one tracker topic where the compliance picture is settled and the treaty picture is not. ICPA classifies it as monitoring rather than a confirmed Joint Review workstream, because it has not appeared on a published bilateral agenda, and it sits inside the annual review environment triggered when the United States declined to renew USMCA in its current form on July 1, 2026.
A note on scope. This page runs from the first U.S. de minimis measure, not from the start of the Joint Review. The measures that create today’s compliance obligations begin in February 2025, more than a year before the July 1, 2026 review. Items predating the review are marked as antecedent so this page stays reconcilable with the rest of the tracker, which dates the current review phase from March 2026.
The legal texts that govern low-value shipments today. On this topic the domestic instruments, not the treaty, determine what an importer must do.
- 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(C), the de minimis administrative exemption, as amended by section 901 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015
- One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, 119th Cong., § 70531(b), repealing the commercial exception effective July 1, 2027
- 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(A) and (B), the personal and gift exceptions, not repealed
- Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2132, the expired temporary surcharge authority
- E.O. 14324, Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries ↗
- E.O. 14388, Continuing the Suspension, 91 FR 9433 ↗
- CBP implementation notice, 90 FR 42418 ↗
- E.O. 14256 of April 2, 2025, China and Hong Kong low-value imports
The complete record of official actions bearing on U.S. de minimis treatment, running from the first measure in February 2025. Items dated before July 1, 2026 predate the Joint Review and are marked as antecedent. None of these amends the USMCA text.
Executive Orders 14193 (Canada), 14194 (Mexico), and 14195 (China) imposed additional duties under IEEPA and provided that duty-free de minimis treatment would remain available for covered articles only until the Secretary of Commerce notified the President that adequate systems were in place to process and collect the new duties. This is the first point at which de minimis eligibility for Canadian and Mexican goods became conditional, and it is the measure Canada later challenged under Article 7.8.1(f).
Canada filed a request for consultations under CUSMA Article 31.4 concerning the U.S. IEEPA duties on Canadian goods. Article 7.8.1(f) on express shipments is one of seven provisions cited, alongside Articles 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.7.1, 2.8.1, 2.8.3, 2.9, and 2.10.1. This is the only CUSMA proceeding in which the de minimis commitment has been formally invoked. See Disputes & Consultations.
Following notification from the Secretary of Commerce that collection systems were in place, Executive Order 14256 removed duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value imports of Chinese and Hong Kong origin, effective May 2, 2025. Canadian and Mexican goods were not covered at this stage, but the order established the operational template later applied to all countries.
Section 70531(b) of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1 of the 119th Congress, repeals the commercial-shipment de minimis exception under 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(C) effective July 1, 2027. The same section creates a civil penalty for entering merchandise under the exemption in violation of other customs law, effective August 3, 2025. This is the only de minimis measure grounded in an act of Congress rather than executive or regulatory action, and it is the reason the current suspension is best understood as a bridge rather than a reversible policy.
Executive Order 14324 suspended the duty-free de minimis exemption under 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(C) for all covered products valued at US$800 or less regardless of country of origin, effective 12:01 a.m. EDT on August 29, 2025. Non-postal shipments must be entered in the Automated Commercial Environment by a party qualified to make entry, with applicable duties paid. The order set a separate duty rate for postal-network shipments and superseded section 2 of E.O. 14256 in part. Canada and Mexico were covered from this date forward.
CBP’s notice at 90 FR 42418 effectuated E.O. 14324, modified the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and set out the interim postal process under which carriers or other qualified parties collect and remit duties on a periodic basis. Shipments already ineligible for the exemption, such as goods subject to antidumping or countervailing duties or quota, continued to require an appropriate entry type.
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250, the Court held 6 to 3 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the principal opinion; the portions applying the major questions doctrine were joined by only two other Justices and are a plurality rather than a majority holding. Refund questions were remanded to the lower courts. The decision did not address de minimis directly, and its application to a suspension of an administrative exemption remains unresolved. See Open Legal Issues.
Three instruments issued the day of the decision. Executive Order 14389 (Ending Certain Tariff Actions) terminated the IEEPA duties while preserving the underlying national emergency declarations. Executive Order 14388 (Continuing the Suspension of Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries), 91 FR 9433, expressly continued the de minimis suspension and tied the postal-item duty rate to the new surcharge. Proclamation 11012 imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The pairing is the clearest available evidence that the administration treats the de minimis suspension as legally separable from the IEEPA tariffs.
The IEEPA duties ceased to be collected and the 10 percent Section 122 surcharge took effect at 12:01 a.m. EST, applying to formerly de minimis shipments along with everything else. Goods qualifying for USMCA preferential treatment were reported to be exempt from the surcharge, which made origin documentation newly valuable on shipments that previously needed none. The Court of International Trade later held Proclamation 11012 invalid as contrary to law on May 7, 2026, and that ruling was stayed pending appeal at the Federal Circuit, leaving a refund question open for the surcharge window.
CBP published three documents. The interim final rule at 91 FR 37789, CBP Dec. 26-12, amending 19 CFR part 10, indefinitely suspended the exemption for all modes other than the international postal network, effective immediately on June 24, 2026. The companion interim final rule at 91 FR 37801, CBP Dec. 26-13, amending 19 CFR part 145, suspended the exemption for mail and created the new postal informal entry process effective July 24, 2026. A general notice at 91 FR 38007 announced the voluntary Entry Type 13 electronic informal mail entry test. Comments on both rules were due July 24, 2026. The rules ground the suspension in 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a) on the reasoning that the administrative burden of the exemption now outweighs the duties forgone.
The Free Trade Commission held the mandatory six-year joint review under Article 34.7. Ambassador Greer stated that the United States did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form. Annual reviews under Article 34.7.4 now run until the parties agree to an extension or the agreement reaches its July 1, 2036 term. All existing rights and obligations, including Article 7.8, remain fully in force. Extension remains available at any time by written confirmation of the three heads of government.
USTR listed the Mexico City round agenda as steel and aluminum and derivative products, automobiles, economic security, labor, agriculture, and electronic payment services. Customs administration and de minimis were not named. The July 23 joint statement from Ambassador Greer and Secretary Ebrard emphasized North American manufacturing, supply chains, and free-riding by non-parties, and directed a fourth round in Washington in September 2026. Canada is not party to this bilateral track. This is the principal evidence for classifying De Minimis as monitoring rather than a confirmed Joint Review workstream.
July 24 is the single most consequential date on this page, and the four items are easy to conflate.
- The new postal informal entry process under 19 CFR part 145 took effect, replacing the interim carrier-collection process for international mail
- The comment period on both interim final rules closed
- The Section 122 surcharge expired by operation of law at 12:01 a.m. EDT at the end of its 150-day statutory limit, and with it the flat postal-item duty rate that E.O. 14388 had tied to it
- New Section 301 duties of 10 or 12.5 percent, announced by USTR on July 23 following forced-labor enforcement investigations covering 60 economies, took effect at the same moment. Canada and Mexico were placed in the 10 percent tier. These duties carry no statutory expiration and reach low-value shipments that no longer have de minimis cover
Net effect for a low-value importer: the temporary flat surcharge is gone, replaced by an open-ended Section 301 layer, and classification accuracy now determines duty rather than a single blanket percentage.
Fixed dates already on the calendar. None of these depends on the outcome of the Joint Review.
Treaty commitment against current practice, and the mechanics of the channel a shipment moves through.
Duty-free de minimis suspended for all origins. Formal or informal entry with 10-digit HTSUS classification and duty payment required on every commercial shipment regardless of value.
No suspension of the treaty thresholds located. ICPA has not verified current Mexican courier and postal handling in detail on this pass; confirm with a Mexican customs broker before relying on threshold treatment.
Thresholds apply only to courier shipments from the United States or Mexico, per CBSA guidance. Postal shipments and shipments from other countries remain on Canada’s general framework. No suspension located.
Article 7.8 permits the United States to apply to express shipments from Mexico or Canada a de minimis amount no greater than the amount that party applies. The provision was drafted as leverage to encourage Canada and Mexico to raise their thresholds toward the U.S. figure.
ICPA analysis. The presence of an express, bounded path for the United States to reduce its threshold is an argument against reading Article 7.8 to permit outright elimination. A party that negotiated a specific reduction mechanism arguably accepted a floor above zero. That argument has not been tested, and the United States has not published a response to it. Treat this as analysis, not as settled interpretation.
- Formal or informal entry filed in ACE by a party qualified to make entry
- 10-digit HTSUS classification, country of origin, value, and duty payment on every shipment
- Section 321 release on manifest is no longer available for commercial goods
- CUSMA preference may be claimed where the good qualifies and documentation is present
- New postal informal entry under 19 CFR part 145, for mail valued at US$2,500 or less
- A basic importation and entry bond must be on file before release
- Filers limited to the owner, the purchaser, or a designated licensed customs broker; consignees who are not owners or purchasers must use a broker as importer of record
- Monthly duty reporting and payment following CBP’s international mail duty worksheet process, due early in the month following arrival
- Excluded categories, enforced from Oct. 22, 2026, must use formal entry or Entry Type 13
Operational detail on the postal process, including the exact bond type, worksheet mechanics, and payment channel, has been described inconsistently across published summaries. Verify against the rule text at 91 FR 37801 and CBP’s current global guidance for international mail before configuring a process. Verify operational detail
Items circulating in stakeholder input, legislative proposals, or analysis. None has been adopted, and none has been located in published government negotiating text.
The U.S. suspension applies to all origins with no carve-out for USMCA-originating goods. Origin affects the duty rate owed, not whether an entry must be filed.
Canadian small and medium enterprises told Global Affairs Canada during the 2025 CUSMA consultations that they want either restored U.S. thresholds or new carve-outs for low-value shipments within North America. Global Affairs Canada published this as stakeholder input, not as a Canadian negotiating position.
Article 7.8 already permits the United States to apply a reciprocal threshold to Mexican and Canadian express shipments, capped at the other party’s own amount. The mechanism has not been used.
A settlement in which the United States applies a low reciprocal threshold rather than none, in exchange for Canadian and Mexican increases, would resolve the treaty question without an amendment. No party has proposed this publicly. It is included because it is the only path ICPA has identified that operates entirely within the existing text.
Eligibility for simplified treatment turns on value, channel, and merchandise category. There is no trilateral trusted-shipper data framework.
Analysts have floated conditioning preferential low-value treatment on advance data, seller and marketplace identification, and forced-labor and counterfeit screening. The Entry Type 13 test is the closest existing analogue, but it is a domestic CBP program, not a trilateral framework. No proposed text located in government sources.
Section 122 has expired. Section 301, Section 232, and Section 338 remain available to the executive without prior congressional approval. The de minimis suspension itself now rests on 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a) and, from July 1, 2027, on the statutory repeal.
Trade press reports bills introduced in July 2026 that would repeal Section 122 and Section 338 and require congressional approval before use of Sections 201, 232, and 301. ICPA has not located the bill text or a Congress.gov record and is not naming a bill number or sponsor here. Relevance to this page is indirect: such legislation would affect the duty layers now applying to low-value shipments, not the de minimis repeal itself, which is already statutory.
The only CUSMA proceeding in which the de minimis commitment has been formally invoked, and it is narrower than commonly described.
Correction to earlier versions of this page. There is no standalone Canada de minimis dispute. Article 7.8.1(f) appears as one of seven cited provisions inside Canada’s March 4, 2025 consultations request concerning the U.S. IEEPA trafficking duties. Prior versions of this page described the claim as a dedicated de minimis case, which overstated its scope.
Complaining party Canada; responding party United States; no third party
Articles 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.7.1, 2.8.1, 2.8.3, 2.9, 2.10.1, and 7.8.1(f)
The 25 percent duty on Canadian non-energy goods and 10 percent duty on Canadian energy goods that took effect March 4, 2025 under IEEPA. Canada’s request quotes the provision in E.O. 14193 under which duty-free de minimis treatment for covered Canadian articles would cease upon notification from the Secretary of Commerce that collection systems were ready. The Article 7.8.1(f) claim is directed at that conditional termination, not at the later E.O. 14324 all-countries suspension or the June 2026 interim final rules.
Global Affairs Canada lists the matter as active with consultations initiated. No panel has been requested. The published case record was last modified June 20, 2025 and does not reflect the February 2026 termination of the IEEPA duties, so the operative status should be treated as uncertain rather than current.
The underlying measures were terminated on February 24, 2026 following Learning Resources. Whether Canada continues to pursue consultations, treats the matter as resolved by termination, or refiles against the current regulatory measures has not been located in any public statement.
Before June 24, 2026, a challenger could argue the suspension was an exercise of emergency authority that Learning Resources had undercut. The interim final rules complicate that argument by resting on 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a), which delegates to the Secretary the judgment about when administering the exemption costs more than the duties it forgoes. A treaty claim now has to engage the domestic customs-administration rationale rather than the emergency-powers one.
Cutting the other way: interim final rules issued without prior notice and comment carry their own procedural exposure, and the fact that the rules were needed at all suggests the executive instruments were not thought sufficient. Both readings are available. ICPA does not treat either as settled.
The full inventory ICPA is tracking on this topic, grouped by the question each one turns on. None has been resolved by a panel, a court holding directly on point, or an agreed interpretation.
Settled: the treaty text and its numerical thresholds; the existence, dates, and content of the executive orders, interim final rules, and statutory repeal; the holding in Learning Resources that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs; the fact that Canada cited Article 7.8.1(f) on March 4, 2025.
ICPA analysis, not settled law: that the reciprocity mechanism argues against a power to eliminate; that codification strengthens the U.S. position against an emergency-powers challenge while creating APA exposure; that the July 2027 repeal converts the current suspension into a bridge rather than a reversible policy. These are reasoned readings offered to help members plan, not predictions of outcome.
Positions inferred only from official statements and filings, not from press reporting or meeting attendance.
Treats duty-free low-value entry as a closed question. The stated rationale across the executive orders and the interim final rules is that the exemption facilitated illicit trade and evasion and that its administrative burden now exceeds the duties forgone. Congress reached the same result independently in July 2025. No published U.S. response to the Article 7.8 claim has been located.
No formal position on Article 7.8 located. De minimis was not on the published agenda for the three bilateral rounds held to date, and the July 23 joint statement does not mention customs facilitation. Mexico’s own thresholds are far below the U.S. figure, which reduces its exposure and may reduce its interest in raising the issue.
The only party to have invoked Article 7.8.1(f) in a CUSMA proceeding, in the March 4, 2025 consultations request. Global Affairs Canada’s published consultation report records small-business demand for restored U.S. thresholds. Canada has not begun substantive text-based bilateral negotiations with the United States and did not participate in the three Mexico City rounds.
Recorded here rather than filled with inference. Each is an active line of inquiry for the next verification pass.
- Current operative status of Canada’s March 4, 2025 consultations request
- Any published U.S. legal defense to the Article 7.8.1(f) claim
- Mexico’s formal position on Article 7.8, if one exists
- Exact bond type, worksheet, and payment mechanics under 19 CFR part 145
- Whether CUSMA preference can be claimed in the postal channel
- Bill text and Congress.gov record for the reported tariff-authority legislation
- Confirmed 60 economies and the 10/12.5 percent tier structure; still worth checking product-exclusion annexes for de minimis-relevant HTS lines
- Whether Section 301 and Section 338 duties stack on Canadian-origin goods
- Federal Circuit schedule in the Section 122 appeal
- Current Mexican courier and postal handling of low-value shipments
Every link below was checked as live and topic-relevant on July 26, 2026.
ICPA’s trade law partners can help members navigate low-value entry procedures, the new postal informal entry requirements, bond and classification exposure, and compliance strategy ahead of the October 2026 and July 2027 deadlines.
About this tracker
Spot something inaccurate, know of a development, article, or video that should be added, or notice something not working? Reach out any time.
This tracker is researched, written, and maintained by Heather Tschirhart, Head of Research, Data, and Analytics.