Indefinite Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Merchandise Arriving Through All Modes Other Than the International Postal Network

Entegris, Inc., a semiconductor materials supplier, opposes the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for industrial B2B shipments. They argue that the rule imposes disproportionate compliance costs on established importers compared to the negligible revenue collected and recommend a trusted-trader carve-out or a B2B-specific exemption.

The commenter opposes the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption, arguing that it imposes disproportionate costs on consumers and small businesses. They suggest that CBP should instead use targeted enforcement, risk-based screening, and narrower alternatives rather than a complete suspension of duty-free treatment.

The commenter opposes the suspension of the de minimis exemption, arguing that it acts as a tax on the middle class and contributes to inflation. They suggest lowering the exemption limit instead of suspending it to keep costs manageable for consumers.

The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) strongly supports the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for low-value commercial shipments. They argue that the current exemption allows illicit goods to enter the country and causes significant economic harm to the domestic U.S. textile industry by undercutting American manufacturers.

Charlotte Lorthioir, a private citizen, opposes the proposed indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption. She argues that the rule will increase costs for consumers and small businesses during a time of high inflation and suggests that the CBP should instead focus on enforcing compliance with commercial importers.

The commenter, identifying as an individual consumer, opposes the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption because it imposes unexpected costs, fees, and paperwork on ordinary people purchasing low-value goods. They argue that CBP should focus enforcement on bad actors and large platforms rather than shifting the burden onto low-income and everyday consumers.

The commenter opposes the suspension of the de minimis exemption, arguing that it would harm consumers and provide no significant benefit to the government. They contend that the cost of enforcement would outweigh the tariff revenue and that many small private sellers are unequipped to handle such requirements.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a bipartisan organization representing domestic producers, strongly supports the interim final rule to indefinitely suspend the de minimis exemption for non-postal merchandise. They argue that the exemption has become a loophole for evading duties, facilitating the entry of illicit goods like fentanyl and forced-labor products, and creating an unfair competitive disadvantage for U.S. manufacturers and retailers.