Online Customs Platforms: Compliance Requirements for Digital Trade Services

What Compliance Rules Apply to Online Customs Platforms?

Online platforms that connect importers with customs brokers, process shipping documents, or offer classification tools must comply with the same customs broker regulations that govern traditional brokerage relationships. CBP's January 2026 ruling in HQ H350722 examined an online platform offering multiple customs services and identified compliance issues spanning POA execution, client confidentiality, fee structures, and territorial requirements.

Can an Unlicensed Platform Connect Importers with Customs Brokers?

Yes, but with strict limitations. The platform's role must be limited to facilitating electronic transmission of information. It cannot actively participate in entry decisions, intermediate the power of attorney process, or provide services that constitute customs business (such as data extraction for entry or classification beyond six digits for merchandise being entered).

Digital platforms are reshaping how importers access customs services. Platforms promise streamlined onboarding, faster entry filing, integrated document processing, and AI-powered classification. But the regulatory framework governing customs business was built around the relationship between an importer and a licensed broker, not a three-party model with a technology platform in the middle.

HQ H350722 is the most comprehensive CBP analysis of this platform model to date. It provides a blueprint for understanding where platforms can operate freely and where they need to restructure.

Last updated: March 2026

GingerControl helps companies build in-house AI-augmented compliance capabilities, from process consulting to custom AI system development.

The Platform Model CBP Examined

The platform in H350722 offered four integrated services: connecting importers with third-party brokers, OCR document processing, AI classification, and Form 5106 filing. CBP analyzed each service independently (see our detailed H350722 analysis). But the ruling also identified structural compliance issues that affect any platform operating in this space.

POA Requirements: No Intermediaries Since October 2022

One of the most significant findings in H350722 concerns powers of attorney. The platform required importers to execute a POA through the platform interface, which then allowed a third-party broker to access the importer's documents and make entry.

CBP's 2022 broker modernization rules changed the POA landscape. Under 19 C.F.R. 111.36(c)(3), a broker "must execute a customs power of attorney directly with the importer of record, and not via a freight forwarder or other third party, to transact customs business for that importer of record."

CBP explained in the 2022 final rule that this requirement "precludes a broker from obtaining a power of attorney from someone other than an importer" (87 Fed. Reg. 63288). This means:

The importer must receive the POA directly from the broker
The broker must receive the executed POA directly from the importer
An unlicensed platform cannot act as an intermediary in POA execution

Platforms that currently route POA execution through their interface need to restructure so that the broker and importer execute the POA directly with each other, even if the platform facilitates the introduction.

Client Confidentiality: Platform Infrastructure Creates Risk

Under 19 C.F.R. 111.24, records pertaining to broker clients are confidential. Brokers "must not disclose their contents or any information connected with the records to any persons other than those clients," with limited exceptions for specified CBP officials, sureties, and court orders.

H350722 identified a specific risk: when brokers communicate with importers through a chat function embedded in the platform's infrastructure, the platform operator may have access to confidential client information. If the broker discloses client records through the platform's chat system, this could violate 19 C.F.R. 111.24 "unless the importer provided written authorization for such a disclosure."

CBP also noted an important asymmetry: the confidentiality rule binds brokers, not importers. If an importer uploads entry data and documents to the platform, "no violation of 19 C.F.R. 111.24 occurs because the regulation does not constrain an importer's ability to divulge its own records" (citing HQ H272715, 2017).

Practical solutions for platforms:

Implement end-to-end encryption for broker-importer communications so the platform operator cannot access message content
Obtain written client authorization for any data sharing with the platform, modeled on the POA language in HQ H318461 (2022)
Clearly distinguish between data uploaded by the importer (not restricted) and data shared by the broker (restricted)
Include confidentiality consent in the onboarding process

Fee Structures: What Brokers Can and Cannot Pay Platforms

Under 19 C.F.R. 111.36(b), a broker "must not enter into any agreement with an unlicensed person to transact customs business for others in such manner that the fees or other benefits resulting from the services rendered for others inure to the benefit of the unlicensed person." The only exception is for freight forwarder referrals under 111.36(c).

CBP cautioned in H350722 that the platform's fee arrangement "may violate 19 C.F.R. 111.36(b) if the fee paid to the Unlicensed Company by an importer seeking to engage a third-party broker is tied to the entry filed by the broker."

Two prior rulings define the line:

Impermissible: Per-transaction fees. In HQ H276784 (2016), CBP found that payments calculated as "a percentage of the entry fee, paid either per importer or per shipment" were impermissible commissions derived from customs business. In HQ H290002 (2018), CBP reiterated that commissions "paid per brokerage service sold" were impermissible.

Permissible: Flat fees. In HQ 113965 (1997), CBP suggested that "a flat amount paid by [the broker] to its agents that is not tied to any particular transaction" would be permissible. In HQ H290002, CBP confirmed that "the flat amount received by sales representatives for salaries and wages earned is permissible because it is not tied to any particular customs business."

For platforms, this means:

Fee Structure	Permissible?	Rationale
Flat subscription fee from importer to platform	Yes	Not tied to specific entries
Per-entry fee from importer to platform	At risk	Tied to customs business transaction
Commission from broker to platform per entry	No	Fees from customs business inuring to unlicensed person
Flat marketing/technology fee from broker to platform	Yes	Not tied to specific transactions
Percentage of brokerage fees shared with platform	No	Commission derived from customs business

Territorial Requirement: Foreign Platforms Face Extra Scrutiny

Under 19 C.F.R. 111.3(a), effective since December 2022, "customs business must be conducted within the customs territory of the United States" (the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).

The platform in H350722 was operated by a foreign entity. CBP cautioned that "licensed customs brokers engaged by the Unlicensed Company must carefully structure their transactions in order to abide by 19 C.F.R. 111.3(a) and ensure that customs business is conducted solely within the customs territory of the United States."

For foreign-operated platforms, this means that any activity constituting customs business (classification, entry preparation, data extraction) must be performed within U.S. territory, even if the platform's servers or personnel are located elsewhere. Brokers using foreign platforms bear responsibility for ensuring compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a platform charge importers a fee for connecting them with a broker?

A flat subscription or access fee that is not tied to specific customs transactions is permissible. A per-entry fee or a fee that varies based on the volume of customs business transacted raises concerns under 19 C.F.R. 111.36(b), because it resembles a commission derived from customs business.

What if the platform also holds a customs broker's license?

A platform that holds a broker's license can perform customs business under that license, subject to all broker regulations (responsible supervision, confidentiality, POA requirements, territorial restrictions). The key advantage is that a licensed platform can offer entry preparation, classification, and other customs business services directly.

Can a platform display entry status information to importers?

Providing importers with status updates on their own entries (submitted, released, liquidated) is not customs business, because it is sharing information about completed or pending transactions with the party who owns that information. The platform should ensure this is structured as sharing the importer's own data, not the broker's confidential records.

How does GingerControl's platform model differ?

GingerControl operates as a standalone research and simulation platform, separate from entry filing. The HTS Classifier surfaces candidate codes for broker review. The Tariff Calculator simulates duty costs. The Tariff Briefing tracks policy changes. None of these functions involve entry preparation, document filing, or intermediation between importers and brokers for entry purposes. GingerControl also offers services (trade compliance consulting, AI agentic system build, audit system build) for companies that want to structure their compliance workflows compliantly.

GingerControl is a pre-classification research tool. It follows the same reasoning process a licensed customs broker uses, including GRI analysis, Section/Chapter Note review, and CROSS ruling research, but the final classification decision benefits from professional judgment.

Building a customs technology platform? GingerControl offers AI Agentic System Build and trade compliance consulting services. Talk to our team

References

[REF 1] HQ H350722 (Jan. 16, 2026): Online platform analysis Source: CROSS

[REF 2] 87 Fed. Reg. 63267 (Oct. 18, 2022): Broker modernization, POA direct execution, territorial requirement Source: Federal Register

[REF 3] HQ H258556 (Sept. 6, 2017): Intermediary role, passive transmission Source: CROSS

[REF 4] HQ H318461 (Aug. 25, 2022): POA confidentiality consent language Source: CROSS

[REF 5] HQ H272715 (Feb. 7, 2017): Confidentiality binds brokers, not importers Source: CROSS

[REF 6] HQ H276784 (Dec. 29, 2016): Per-transaction commissions impermissible Source: CROSS

[REF 7] HQ H290002 (Nov. 30, 2018): Commission vs. flat fee distinction Source: CROSS

[REF 8] 19 C.F.R. Part 111: Customs broker regulations Source: eCFR