Addressing the CBP HQ Ruling on an AI-assisted customs platform

Tru Identity's platform is built explicitly for licensed customs brokers, and every single component of the platform was designed with 19 CFR 111.28 (Responsible Supervision and Control) in mind.

Every element of the ruling's analytical framework was either anticipated in our architecture or is addressed by our operating model. This post states our position on each relevant dimension of the ruling plainly.

What the Ruling Said

It reaffirms:

• Only licensed customs brokers may conduct customs business on behalf of others
• Automation does not change this — unlicensed tools making entry-relevant decisions are subject to the same prohibition as unlicensed persons
• Disclaimers do not cure impermissible conduct when classification is tied to a specific entry

It clarifies for the first time:

• Form 5106 submission constitutes customs business
• Automated tools used in the entry lifecycle require a licensed broker to have defined and controlled the decision matrix — not just reviewed the output
• The permissible path for AI classification is a product database model, operationally separated from entry preparation, with a meaningful disclaimer and licensed broker oversight

It did not address:

• How licensed customs brokers may use technology to assist in performing their own licensed functions
• Drawback, ISF beyond 6-digit classification, or post-entry amendment workflows
• SaaS platforms operating exclusively within a licensed broker's supervised workflow

The ruling's holdings target unlicensed conduct. Its reasoning establishes the standard any automation — regardless of who operates it — must meet when touching entry-relevant decisions. That standard is: licensed broker judgment must govern the decision matrix, not the tool itself.

Key Compliance Considerations for Customs Brokerages

1. Decision Matrix Ownership

The ruling's standard: A licensed broker must have a role in specifying what information is automatically generated by any tool's decision matrix that produces entry-relevant output.

How this applies to your use of Tru: Classification logic for Tru's 99 code selection, stacking, and sequencing was developed with direct involvement from U.S. trade attorneys and licensed customs brokers. Our AI infrastructure for other functions was designed with LCB input at the architectural level. Critically, our platform allows LCB users to provide direct feedback, edits, and corrections to classification logic as they work.

The decision matrix of Tru's AI supported compliance workflows is not fixed and externally imposed. It is continuously shaped by the licensed brokers using it.

2. Confidentiality (19 C.F.R. § 111.24)

The ruling's standard: Brokers may not disclose client entry data to third parties without written client authorization. The obligation runs to the broker, not the platform.

Our position: Tru Identity does not act as an intermediary between broker and importer. Client data resides within the Tru platform as a technology infrastructure provider to the broker, not as a conduit between parties. No importer accesses Tru directly through our platform.

The open compliance question this ruling raises for the industry: CBP's reasoning makes clear that a broker's use of any third-party technology platform that houses client entry data implicates § 111.24 unless written client authorization exists. This is not a Tru-specific issue — it applies to any brokerage software vendor. However, it is an issue that brokerages using Tru should address proactively.

Our recommendation: Brokerages should include explicit data authorization language in their client service agreements or onboarding documentation that covers the use of subvendors and technology platforms in the handling of entry data. This is becoming a standard of responsible brokerage practice, not merely a Tru-specific requirement. We recommend our clients adopt this as a baseline compliance posture regardless of which technology platforms they use.

3. Power of Attorney (19 C.F.R. § 111.36)

The ruling's standard: Brokers must execute POAs directly with the importer of record. No third-party intermediation of the POA relationship is permissible under 19 C.F.R. § 111.36(c)(3).

How this applies to your use of Tru: Not applicable. Tru Identity does not participate in, intermediate, or route POA execution between brokers and their clients. The broker-importer POA relationship is entirely outside our platform's scope.

4. Fee Structures (19 C.F.R. § 111.36)

The ruling's standard: Unlicensed entities may not receive fees tied to specific brokerage transactions.

How this applies to your use of Tru: Not applicable. Tru Identity charges a SaaS subscription fee for platform access. Our fee structure is not tied to brokerage fees collected from importers, and we do not collect broker fees from importers on behalf of brokers. 19 C.F.R. § 111.36(b) is clear about who can benefit from fees paid for customs broker services.

5. Geography (19 C.F.R. § 111.3(a))

The ruling's standard: Customs business must be conducted within the customs territory of the United States.

How this applies to your use of Tru: All of Tru Identity's infrastructure is hosted within the United States. Brokers using our platform are conducting their customs business within U.S. jurisdiction on U.S.-hosted systems.

6. Disclaimer Sufficiency

The ruling's standard: A disclaimer does not cure impermissible conduct when classification output is tied to a specific entry. Disclaimers are only meaningful when classification is genuinely disconnected from a specific importation requiring entry.

How this applies to your use of Tru: Our classification function operates as a product database tool. Classification is conducted at the database level — not generated on demand in connection with a specific shipment in queue for entry. The operational separation between our classification workflow and entry preparation is structural, not merely disclaimed. Our disclaimers therefore operate in the context CBP identified as permissible in HQ H272798, not the context it found impermissible in HQ H290535.

——

Written by Hugo Pakula, Co-Founder and CEO of Tru Identity

This post represents my views and not those of any regulatory body, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection. While I have made reasonable efforts to accurately characterize the ruling and its implications, customs regulations are subject to change and interpretation, and readers should consult qualified legal counsel before making compliance decisions based on this analysis.