Section 337 Exclusion Orders: How CBP Stops Infringing Imports at Entry
Chen Cui Co-Founder of GingerControl A Section 337 exclusion order is a USITC order, enforced by CBP at the border, that bars entry of articles found to infringe a US patent, trademark, copyright or design; a limited order reaches named respondents and their products, a general order reaches every importer, and the burden of showing a product falls outside the order sits with whoever wants it entered.
Next step:Check every deadline on one entry
In this post
- What is a Section 337 exclusion order?
- Can an exclusion order stop goods from an importer who was never part of the case?
- Who issues a Section 337 exclusion order, and what triggers one?
- General exclusion order or limited exclusion order: which one are you facing?
- How does CBP enforce a Section 337 exclusion order at entry?
- How do you get a CBP ruling that a redesigned product is not covered?
- What happens after a seizure and forfeiture order?
- How can an importer check Section 337 exposure before shipping?
- Where Section 337 review fits in your compliance program
- References
What is a Section 337 exclusion order?
A Section 337 exclusion order is a directive from the US International Trade Commission (USITC) under 19 U.S.C. 1337 telling CBP to refuse entry to articles found to infringe a US patent, registered trademark, copyright or protected design, or to violate the statute in another way. CBP enforces it at the border under 19 CFR 12.39.
Can an exclusion order stop goods from an importer who was never part of the case?
Yes. A general exclusion order applies to every importer, regardless of source. A limited exclusion order reaches products of the named respondents, including when someone else imports them. In both cases the importer, not the patent owner, carries the burden of showing a product is outside the order.
A Section 337 exclusion order is an admissibility bar, not a duty. Goods inside its scope do not enter at any rate. The USITC investigates and issues the order; CBP's Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch applies it to real shipments, and decides through a ruling under 19 CFR part 177 whether a redesigned product is covered. For an electronics or consumer goods importer bringing in 200 SKUs from a dozen contract manufacturers, the exposure is not the products you know are disputed. It is the supplier who turns out to be a respondent, or the product category that sits under a general exclusion order nobody on your team has read. GingerControl builds trade compliance AI for HTS classification and full tariff stack calculation, and its Trade Advisory team covers compliance and risk assessment; it does not decide infringement, which stays with patent counsel.
Last updated: October 2026
Who issues a Section 337 exclusion order, and what triggers one?
The USITC issues it after an investigation, usually started by a complaint from a rights holder. Section 337(a)(1) declares unlawful the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable US patent, a registered copyright, a registered trademark, a registered mask work or a protected design, plus a broader category of "unfair methods of competition and unfair acts" whose threat or effect is to destroy or substantially injure a US industry, prevent one from being established, or restrain or monopolize trade.
The statute makes exclusion the default remedy once a violation is found. Under 1337(d)(1), the Commission "shall direct that the articles concerned, imported by any person violating the provision of this section, be excluded from entry into the United States," unless public interest factors (public health and welfare, competitive conditions, US production and consumers) weigh against it.
Four stages matter for an importer:
| Stage | What happens | Effect on your shipments | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investigation instituted | Notice published in the Federal Register; the Commission sets a target date within 45 days | No border effect yet, but the product scope is now public | 19 U.S.C. 1337(b)(1) |
| Violation found, order issued | Determination published; referred for a 60-day Presidential review | Covered articles may enter only under a bond set by the Commission | 19 U.S.C. 1337(j); 19 CFR 12.39(a), (b)(2) |
| Review period ends without disapproval | Determination becomes final | Covered articles are refused entry | 19 U.S.C. 1337(j)(4); 19 CFR 12.39(b)(2) |
| Commission finds conditions no longer exist | Order ends or is modified | Entry resumes | 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) |
In practice the review runs through the US Trade Representative: the Commission's orders cite the Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005 (70 FR 43251) and run the bond period until USTR approves or disapproves, or 60 days pass. In the 2025 exercise-equipment orders in Investigation No. 337-TA-1419, the review-period bond was set at 100 percent of entered value.
Bottom line: For a compliance manager watching a product line that resembles one named in a complaint, the investigation notice is the early warning. Once a final order issues, covered goods are refused entry, and the review-period bond is not a safe harbor: if the order becomes final, CBP requires export or destruction of bonded goods within 30 days of notice under 19 CFR 12.39(b)(3), or the full bond is assessed as liquidated damages.
General exclusion order or limited exclusion order: which one are you facing?
The type of order decides whether your identity matters at all. Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2), exclusion is limited to persons found in violation unless the Commission determines that a general order "is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named persons," or that "there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products."
CBP's own summary in ruling HQ H354023 (March 6, 2026) puts the difference plainly, quoting the Federal Circuit:
"A limited exclusion order is 'limited' in that it only applies to the specific parties before the Commission in the investigation. In contrast, a general exclusion order bars the importation of infringing products by everyone, regardless of whether they were respondents in the Commission's investigation."
| Feature | Limited exclusion order | General exclusion order |
|---|---|---|
| Who it reaches | Articles made by or for, or imported by or for, named respondents and their affiliates | All infringing articles, from any source, by any importer |
| Statutory test | Default remedy on a violation, 1337(d)(1) | Circumvention risk, or a pattern of violation with hard-to-trace sources, 1337(d)(2) |
| Can it reach a non-party importer? | Yes, if the goods come from a named respondent | Yes, by design |
| Question your team must answer | Is our supplier, or its affiliate, a respondent? | Does our product infringe the asserted claims or marks? |
| Typical certification | CBP may require importers to certify the goods are not covered | Same, at CBP's discretion |
General orders are not reserved for exotic technology. In 2026 the Commission published general exclusion orders covering electrolyte beverages and their packaging on trademark grounds (91 FR 15635, March 30, 2026) and ink cartridges on patent grounds (91 FR 53424, August 18, 2026). Both notices came about 14 months after the investigation was instituted.
Bottom line: For an importer sourcing one product family from several contract manufacturers, a limited order is a supplier question and a general order is a product question. Check which kind you face first, because it decides whether your vendor master or your engineering drawings hold the answer.
How does CBP enforce a Section 337 exclusion order at entry?
The Commission notifies Treasury, and CBP refuses entry "through the proper officers," per 1337(d)(1). CBP's ruling HQ H354023 adds a point importers often miss: exclusion orders and seizure orders "apply at the border only and are operative against articles presented for customs examination or articles conditionally released from customs custody but still subject to a timely demand for redelivery." Goods already released and beyond the redelivery window are outside the order itself, though a separate cease and desist order can reach sales in the United States.
CBP's intellectual property rights page (last modified August 5, 2026) describes two separate tracks. Its recordation program offers "border enforcement on registered trademarks and copyrights." Separately, "CBP enforces exclusion orders that the U.S. International Trade Commission issues under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on patent infringing and other IPR violative goods."
The enforcement sequence under 19 CFR 12.39 runs in steps:
- Certification. Orders typically let CBP require importers to certify that they "are familiar with the terms of this Order, that they have made appropriate inquiry," and that, to the best of their knowledge, the goods are not excluded. CBP can then demand "such records or analyses as are necessary to substantiate the certification," per the order text in Investigation No. 337-TA-1419.
- Refusal of entry. Covered articles are refused entry once the determination is final.
- Written warning. Under 12.39(b)(4), CBP gives written notice to owners, importers or consignees of goods denied entry "that any future attempt to import such articles may result in the articles being seized and forfeited."
- Bonded goods. Goods released under the review-period bond must be exported or destroyed under CBP supervision within 30 days of notice that the determination is final, or the full bond is assessed.
The coverage question is not a classification question. The orders define covered articles by a plain-language description and by the asserted patent claims or trademark registrations. The 337-TA-1419 orders describe covered goods as "exercise equipment known as Pilates reformers" that infringe specific patent claims, with no HTS reference at all.
Quotable insight: An exclusion order is the one border control where the HTS number tells you almost nothing. Classification asks what an article is. Section 337 asks whether it reads on someone else's patent claim or registered mark. Two products under the same 10-digit HTS number can fall on opposite sides of an order, and a redesigned product can move from excluded to admissible with its HTS number unchanged. The evidence that decides admissibility is engineering and sourcing data, not tariff data.
How do you get a CBP ruling that a redesigned product is not covered?
The main CBP route is an administrative ruling under 19 CFR part 177, subpart A, the same general ruling procedure that governs classification rulings. Any person with "a direct and demonstrable interest" in the question may request one (177.1(c)). For exclusion orders, the request goes to the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch in CBP's Regulations and Rulings office.
Three features make these rulings different from a classification ruling:
- They are often inter partes. Both rulings cited here describe the proceeding as involving the requester and the patent owner or complainant, both with "a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented." Expect the rights holder to argue against you.
- The burden sits with the importer. HQ H354023 describes the Commission's "longstanding practice of placing the burden of proof on the party who, in light of the issued exclusion order, is seeking to have an article entered for consumption."
- The Commission has the last word. CBP's 337 rulings state that Commission determinations "are binding authority on CBP and, in the case of conflict, will modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling."
Outcomes go both ways. In HQ H338254 (January 7, 2025), CBP held that redesigned articles were still subject to a limited exclusion order. In HQ H354023 (March 6, 2026), CBP held that a different redesigned product was not, subject to conditions that included an approved certification. A ruling also binds only the addressee: under 19 CFR 177.9(c), "no other person should rely on the ruling letter." Another importer's favorable ruling on a similar design does not clear your shipment.
The Commission offers a parallel route. Under 19 CFR 210.79, any person may ask for an advisory opinion on whether a proposed course of conduct would violate an exclusion order, and the Commission decides whether to institute the proceeding within 30 days of the petition, absent exceptional circumstances. Choosing between a CBP ruling and a Commission advisory opinion is a strategy call for counsel. Our guide to requesting a CBP binding ruling covers the general part 177 mechanics.
What happens after a seizure and forfeiture order?
A seizure and forfeiture order is the escalation for repeat attempts. Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(i) and 19 CFR 12.39(c), the Commission may order seizure if three conditions are met:
- The owner, importer or consignee previously attempted to import the article or like articles.
- The article was previously denied entry under an exclusion order.
- CBP gave written notice of the order and that seizure and forfeiture would follow any further attempt.
Once the order issues, CBP notifies all ports. The port that seizes goods issues a notice of seizure, and interested parties have 30 days from the notice to petition for relief under 19 CFR part 171; failure to petition leads to administrative forfeiture proceedings (12.39(c)(3)). If the goods turn out not to be covered, the seizure is remitted (12.39(c)(4)).
Two other consequences sit alongside. A cease and desist order under 1337(f) carries a statutory civil penalty of up to the greater of $100,000 or twice the domestic value of the goods "for each day on which an importation of articles, or their sale, occurs in violation of the order." And challenging an exclusion is not always a standard protest: 19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4) makes exclusions protestable "except a determination appealable under section 1337," and Commission determinations are appealed to the Federal Circuit within 60 days after they become final, under 1337(c). Which path fits a given exclusion is a question for counsel. Our customs protest guide covers the protest mechanics where they apply.
Bottom line: For a logistics team that treats a refused entry as a one-off, the written notice after the first denial is what turns the second shipment into a potential seizure. Log every 12.39(b)(4) notice against the SKU and supplier, and stop re-routing until counsel has cleared the product.
How can an importer check Section 337 exposure before shipping?
Exposure checks work best before a complaint names your supplier. A practical sequence, built only on public primary records:
| Step | Where to look | What you are checking |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Search active and recent orders | USITC notices in the Federal Register and the Commission's EDIS docket | Product terms matching your catalog, and whether the order is limited or general |
| 2. Read the covered-articles paragraph | The order itself | The plain-language product description and the asserted claims or marks |
| 3. Match suppliers to respondents | Respondent list and the affiliate language in a limited order | Whether your manufacturer, or a related company, is named |
| 4. Note the end date | The order's term language | The patent-based orders quoted here run "for the remaining term of the patent" |
| 5. Prepare certification support | Your product record and change history | Records you could produce if CBP asks you to substantiate a certification |
| 6. Escalate redesigns early | Patent counsel, then a part 177 ruling or a 210.79 advisory opinion | Whether a design change is worth testing before the goods ship |
The structural analogy with other admissibility regimes is limited. A forced-labor detention turns on how goods were made, and our WRO detention response guide covers that clock. An AD/CVD scope question still lets goods enter on a cash deposit, as our AD/CVD scope and EAPA guide explains. A Section 337 exclusion order stops goods at the border, whatever duty they would have paid.
Bottom line: For an importer running 200 or more SKUs through contract manufacturers, the cheapest 337 control is a quarterly check of new USITC notices against your product categories and supplier list. It takes hours, not weeks, and it surfaces the risk while redesign is still an engineering choice rather than a border dispute.
Where Section 337 review fits in your compliance program
An exclusion order sits outside the tariff work most compliance teams run daily, which is why it gets missed. The facts that matter, what the product is, how it is built, who made it and when the design changed, are the same facts a strong product record already holds. GingerControl's Trade Advisory team works with importers on compliance and risk assessment. Whether a product is covered by an order stays a question for patent counsel. Where a redesign or a sourcing change opens a path back into the market, GingerControl identifies and documents the opportunity; your licensed broker or counsel files. GingerControl does not give legal advice, does not decide infringement, and does not file ruling requests or represent importers before CBP or the USITC.
References
- U.S. Code, 19 U.S.C. 1337, Unfair practices in import trade (2024 edition, GovInfo)
Data cited: unlawful acts in 1337(a)(1), 45-day target date, exclusion as default remedy, general exclusion order tests, cease and desist civil penalty, seizure and forfeiture conditions, 60-day Presidential review, period of effectiveness, Federal Circuit appeal within 60 days
Source: 19 U.S.C. 1337 on GovInfo
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - eCFR, 19 CFR 12.39, Imported articles involving unfair methods of competition or practices
Data cited: entry under bond, 30-day export or destruction, written notice after denial, seizure and forfeiture orders, 30-day petition period
Source: 19 CFR 12.39 on eCFR
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 (eCFR current through October 6, 2026) - eCFR, 19 CFR part 177, subpart A, General Ruling Procedure
Data cited: who may request a ruling (177.1(c)), reliance limited to the addressee (177.9(c))
Source: 19 CFR part 177 subpart A on eCFR
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - eCFR, 19 CFR 210.79, Advisory opinions (USITC Rules of Practice and Procedure)
Data cited: advisory opinion on whether proposed conduct would violate an exclusion order, 30-day decision on institution
Source: 19 CFR 210.79 on eCFR
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - CBP, HQ H354023 (March 6, 2026), Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch ruling under 19 CFR part 177
Data cited: limited vs general exclusion order, border-only operation, burden on the party seeking entry, inter partes procedure, Commission determinations binding on CBP
Source: CBP CROSS, HQ H354023
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - CBP, HQ H338254 (January 7, 2025), Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch ruling under 19 CFR part 177
Data cited: redesigned articles held subject to a limited exclusion order
Source: CBP CROSS, HQ H338254
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - USITC, Limited and General Exclusion Orders, Investigation No. 337-TA-1419 (August 11, 2025)
Data cited: covered-articles description, certification paragraph, 100 percent review-period bond, Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005 (70 FR 43251)
Source: Federal Register notice of the 337-TA-1419 exclusion orders (90 FR 39223)
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - Federal Register, USITC notice, 91 FR 15635 (March 30, 2026), general exclusion order, electrolyte containing beverages
Source: 91 FR 15635
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - Federal Register, USITC notice, 91 FR 53424 (August 18, 2026), general exclusion order, ink cartridges
Source: 91 FR 53424
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - CBP, Intellectual Property Rights (last modified August 5, 2026)
Data cited: recordation covers registered trademarks and copyrights; CBP enforces USITC Section 337 exclusion orders
Source: CBP Intellectual Property Rights
Retrieved: October 9, 2026 - U.S. Code, 19 U.S.C. 1514, Protest against decisions of CBP (2024 edition, GovInfo)
Data cited: exclusions protestable except a determination appealable under section 1337
Source: 19 U.S.C. 1514 on GovInfo
Retrieved: October 9, 2026
Questions people ask
What is a Section 337 exclusion order, and who enforces it?
It is an order of the US International Trade Commission under 19 U.S.C. 1337 directing that articles found to violate Section 337, for example by infringing a US patent or registered trademark, be refused entry. CBP enforces it at the border under 19 CFR 12.39. GingerControl's Trade Advisory team covers compliance and risk assessment; the infringement question itself belongs to patent counsel.
Can a general exclusion order stop my shipment if my company was never named in the investigation?
Yes. A general exclusion order bars infringing articles regardless of source or importer, under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2). A limited order can also reach a non-party that buys from a named respondent. For an importer sourcing a product family from 10 or more contract manufacturers, that means checking the order, not the party list. GingerControl's Trade Advisory engagements include compliance and risk assessment.
Does the HTS code decide whether a product is covered by an exclusion order?
No. Exclusion orders define covered articles in words and by the asserted patent claims or trademark registrations, and coverage turns on infringement, not tariff classification. Two products under one subheading can fall on opposite sides of an order. GingerControl's HTS Classification Researcher documents what a product is and why it classifies where it does, which is useful product evidence but never a coverage determination.
How does an importer get CBP to confirm a redesigned product is not covered?
By requesting an administrative ruling under 19 CFR part 177 from CBP's Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch. Expect the complainant to take part: both rulings cited in this guide were run inter partes. The requester carries the burden of showing the redesign falls outside the order. GingerControl does not file ruling requests; its Trade Advisory team can help an importer organize the product and sourcing facts counsel will need.
What happens if an importer tries again after CBP refuses entry under an exclusion order?
CBP gives written notice after a denial that any future attempt may lead to seizure and forfeiture. If the Commission has issued a seizure and forfeiture order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(i), a second attempt can result in seizure, with 30 days to petition for relief under 19 CFR 12.39(c). GingerControl's Trade Advisory team covers compliance and risk assessment, the review where a refused-entry notice should change how a SKU is handled.
How long does a Section 337 exclusion order stay in effect?
Until the Commission finds the conditions that led to it no longer exist, under 19 U.S.C. 1337(k). The patent-based orders quoted in this guide run for the remaining term of the asserted patent, so the end date is worth calendaring. GingerControl's HTS Classification Researcher produces a reasoning report per product that can sit in the product record alongside counsel's notes on an order's scope.
Tracking liquidation and protest dates in a spreadsheet?
Hand this to GingerOS.
Pick a 30-minute slot on the next page with Chen Cui, our CEO. Bring one notice or one SKU list (an ERP export, a spreadsheet or an email will do) and see what GingerOS does with it.
Reviewed by Michael Weick, LCB / CCS
