Comment Submitted by R. Parker
AnonymousOtherIndividual
Summary: The commenter, identifying as an individual consumer, expresses mixed feelings about the proposed rule. While they support better screening for illegal goods, they argue that the rule could unfairly burden ordinary consumers and request specific safeguards such as plain-language notices, seller accountability for data, and a simple dispute process.
Re: Federal Register Doc. 2026-12669; 91 FR 37801
Docket No. USCBP-2026-0761; RIN 1685-AA45
Indefinite Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Mail Shipments and New Postal Informal Entry Process
I am commenting as an individual consumer.
CBP is right that the international mail system should not be used to sneak in fentanyl, counterfeits, unsafe products, misclassified goods, or shipments designed to dodge duties. I support better screening and better data when mail is being used for unlawful importation.
But this rule should not pretend that every small package in the mail is a smuggling scheme. Regular people receive low-cost international mail for normal reasons: repair parts, phone cables, hobby parts, clothing, small electronics, sewing supplies, replacement pieces, and household items. People also use marketplaces like AliExpress, Temu, Wish, Shein, eBay, Amazon Marketplace, and small foreign sellers because the price is lower or the item is not available locally.
Postal mail is different from express courier shipping. A person receiving a small international package through the mail usually has no customs broker, no importer staff, no compliance department, and no realistic way to know a 10-digit HTSUS classification or entry procedure. If the seller, platform, foreign post, or filer gives bad data, the recipient may be the one who gets delays, extra costs, rejected delivery, or confusing payment demands.
CBP states that this rule suspends the de minimis exemption for merchandise valued at $800 or less arriving through the international postal network and creates a new postal informal entry process for certain merchandise. That may make sense for CBP administration, but the public needs clear consumer protections.
I ask CBP to revise or implement this rule with the following safeguards:
1. Require plain-language notice before purchase and before shipment when postal packages may owe duties, taxes, fees, or require a postal informal entry. A consumer should not learn after the package arrives that a $10 item now has surprise costs or paperwork attached.
2. Require platforms, sellers, and qualified filers to provide the customs data. The burden should be on the party selling and shipping the goods, not the ordinary person waiting for mail at home.
3. Create a simple consumer dispute process for wrong classifications, inflated values, duplicate fees, or packages held because of seller error. Consumers need a way to fix mistakes without hiring a customs broker.
4. Protect low-value personal-use mail from fee traps. If the government collects duties, that is one issue. But private processing, brokerage, or service fees should not turn a cheap item into an unreasonable charge.
5. Give special attention to disabled people, low-income people, people on fixed incomes, rural consumers, and people without reliable transportation. For many of us, low-cost mail-order goods are not luxuries. They are how we repair things, replace small parts, and avoid higher local costs.
6. Publish regular data showing whether this rule actually reduces fentanyl-related shipments, counterfeit goods, unsafe products, undervaluation, and revenue loss. If the public is paying more and getting slower mail, CBP should show the public what benefit is being achieved.
7. Do not use the postal system as a back door for broad price increases without accountability. The rule should target unlawful importation and dishonest commercial conduct, not punish ordinary consumers for buying small personal-use goods.
I am not asking CBP to leave the old system untouched. I am asking CBP to separate enforcement against bad actors from unnecessary harm to the public. The final approach should make sellers, platforms, shippers, and qualified filers responsible for accurate data and compliance, while giving ordinary mail recipients clear notice, fair costs, and a simple way to resolve problems.
Please revise the rule so the new postal process protects revenue and safety without turning small international mail into a confusing, expensive, and unpredictable burden for ordinary people.