New Trade Bill Imposes $2 Fee and Strict Documentation on Low-Value International Shipments

The aptly named FIGHTING for America Act of 2025 is a massive overhaul of the rules governing low-value international imports—the kind of packages you get when you order something cheap from an overseas website. The bill focuses squarely on closing a major customs loophole, known as the Section 321 administrative exemption or de minimis rule, which currently allows shipments valued under $800 to enter the U.S. duty-free and with minimal paperwork. If you shop online, run a small e-commerce business, or worry about fentanyl entering the country, this bill matters.

The End of the Free Ride: New $2 Fee and Paperwork

The core of the bill is a massive increase in transparency and cost for these low-value shipments. First, Section 11 institutes a mandatory $2 customs user fee for every single shipment processed under the Section 321 exemption. This fee is paid by the party making the entry—meaning the shipping company or the importer—but you can bet that cost will be passed directly down to the consumer or the seller, adding a small surcharge to every single cheap international order.

More significantly, Section 4 introduces strict new documentation requirements. Currently, these shipments fly through customs with very little data. Under the new law, importers will have to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with detailed information, including the specific 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule code (a detailed classification number), the country of origin, who sold it, who shipped it, and even details about whether the item was offered for sale on an online marketplace. For a small business importing components, this means a huge jump in compliance headaches and costs.

The High Cost of Lying (or Just Making a Mistake)

The bill backs up these new documentation rules with serious teeth. Under Section 4, if an importer or shipper violates the new documentation rules, they face civil penalties starting at $1,000 for the first offense and escalating to a mandatory maximum of $5,000 for subsequent violations. If someone knowingly provides false information to CBP—say, lying about the item’s value or origin to slip it past customs—that’s fraud, and the fine jumps up to $5,000 for the first time and a mandatory maximum of $10,000 for repeat offenses. This is a clear signal that the days of fast, cheap, and undocumented low-value imports are over, and the liability for errors just went way up for everyone involved in the supply chain.

Closing the Loopholes for Illicit Goods and Unfair Trade

Much of the motivation for this bill comes from concerns about national security and unfair competition. Section 3 officially designates the smuggling of fentanyl and other illegal drugs using the Section 321 loophole as a “priority trade issue.” This means CBP must dedicate significant resources to stopping it. Furthermore, Section 5 severely limits the Secretary of the Treasury’s ability to grant the de minimis exemption if the imported item is already subject to specific duties or quotas. For instance, if certain solar panels are hit with anti-dumping duties, the importer can no longer break up the shipment into $799 packages to sneak them in duty-free.

This change helps level the playing field for domestic manufacturers who have long complained that foreign competitors use the $800 loophole to bypass tariffs and trade enforcement actions. It also gives CBP new authority to quickly seize and forfeit goods (Section 8) if they are illegally imported while claiming the exemption, which is a significant win for intellectual property holders trying to stop counterfeit goods.

What This Means for Your Online Shopping

For the average consumer who buys goods directly from overseas e-commerce sites, the changes will be felt in two ways. First, expect a slight increase in shipping costs due to the new $2 fee and the increased administrative burden on shippers. Second, expect slower processing times as CBP adjusts to reviewing the massive amount of new data required under Section 4. The trade-off is supposed to be a safer, fairer system that cracks down on the flow of illicit drugs and counterfeit goods that exploit the current system.