My Clothing Shipment Was Held by CBP, What Happens Now? What Textile and Apparel Importers Need to Know About U.S. Customs Enforcement

If your clothing shipment was just detained at a U.S. port of entry, you are probably looking for answers fast. Why was it held? What does United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) want? What are my options? And how much trouble am I actually in?

Those are exactly the right questions, and the answers matter more than most importers realize at the moment the notice arrives.

‍Textiles and apparel are among the most aggressively enforced import categories in the United States. That includes everything from T-shirts, dress shirts, blouses, pants, skirts, jackets, coats, dresses, hats, caps, and uniforms to underwear, socks, sportswear, swimwear, and accessories. It also extends to home textiles like bed linens, towels, curtains, and upholstery fabric. If it is made from fabric, it almost certainly falls within CBP's textile enforcement framework, and CBP has historically devoted significant enforcement resources to this category.

The enforcement environment has also shifted significantly in recent years. Between new forced labor laws, expanded tariffs on Chinese-origin goods, and active antidumping orders covering products from multiple countries, a shipment that cleared without a problem last year can trigger a serious enforcement action this year, even if nothing about the goods themselves changed.

In this article, we explore why CBP targets textile and apparel shipments, what the most common triggers are, and what the stakes look like is the first step. But understanding why these situations are difficult to navigate alone, why seemingly straightforward issues often involve complex statutory and regulatory requirements, and why early legal intervention makes a real difference in protecting an importer’s rights and available options is just as important.

Why Textiles and Apparel Are Always on CBP's Radar.

Textile and apparel supply chains are among the most complex in international trade. A finished garment might involve yarn spun in one country, fabric woven in a second, cut and sewn in a third, and shipped through a fourth. That complexity creates opportunity, and CBP knows it.

Origin misrepresentation, undervalued goods, and shipments routed through third countries to dodge duties are all common in this space. The financial stakes drive the behavior. The difference in duties between a garment from a country with favorable trade status and the same garment from a country subject to Section 301 tariffs or antidumping orders can be enormous. That gap is exactly what CBP is trained to find.

The Most Common Reasons CBP Holds a Textile or Apparel Shipment.

• The Declared Country of Origin Does Not Hold Up. This is the most common reason textile and apparel shipments get flagged, and it catches a lot of importers off guard. Under U.S. law, a garment's country of origin is determined by applying detailed statutory and regulatory origin rules to the specific manufacturing process.Although substantial transformation principles frequently play an important role, textile and apparel origin determinations often involve highly technical regulatory analyses that depend on the particular facts of each supply chain. Whether a garment qualifies as originating in a particular country depends on the specific manufacturing operations performed and the applicable legal framework. What appears to be a straightforward origin determination is often not.

  When CBP concludes the declared origin is wrong, whether because the supplier misrepresented it or because the importer's documentation does not support the claim, the consequences can be severe. Retroactive duty assessment on affected entries, which may involve multiple importations depending on the scope of CBP’s findings. Civil penalties that, depending on the circumstances and the applicable statutory framework, may be substantial and, in some cases, approach or exceed the value of the imported merchandise. And if the misrepresentation was used to avoid antidumping duties, a separate investigation on top of everything else.

  Here is what many importers do not expect: a supplier who is quietly misrepresenting origin to stay competitive is not going to put that in writing. The importer receives clean-looking paperwork, enters the goods accordingly, and has no reason to question anything, until CBP does.

• Forced Labor and the UFLPA Presumption. If your textile shipment has any connection to Chinese cotton, even several steps back in the supply chain, it may be subject to detention under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

• Xinjiang produces a significant share of the world's cotton. Under the UFLPA, goods with any Xinjiang connection are presumed to have been produced with forced labor and are barred from entering the United States. The presumption applies unless the importer satisfies the applicable legal standards established under the UFLPA and CBP’s implementing enforcement framework. Meeting those standards often requires extensive supply chain documentation and careful legal analysis. CBP does not need to demonstrate that forced labor occurred. The burden shifts to the importer to satisfy the applicable evidentiary requirements necessary to overcome the statutory presumption.

  That means a pair of jeans assembled in Bangladesh from yarn spun in China from Xinjiang cotton can be detained at an American port even though the finished product never touched Chinese soil. Supply chains that looked fine before June 2022 may not look fine now.

  As discussed in our prior article on UFLPA enforcement, the importer typically has thirty days to respond with documentation tracing the entire supply chain from raw fiber to finished garment. That is a short window for a complicated process that frequently requires coordinating records from multiple entities across several countries while ensuring that the response addresses CBP’s legal and evidentiary expectations. It can open the door to broader scrutiny of everything you are importing.

• Antidumping and Countervailing Duties. Active antidumping and countervailing duty orders cover a wide range of textile and apparel products from China, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, and other countries. These orders impose additional duties, sometimes in the hundreds of percent, on top of standard tariff rates.

  What makes this particularly dangerous is the retroactive component. The duty rate deposited at the time of entry is preliminary. After an annual administrative review, the final rate may be significantly higher. The importer may ultimately become responsible for additional duties if the final assessment exceeds the amount previously deposited, creating significant financial exposure that often is not apparent when the goods are first imported.

  Importers who did not know their product fell within an existing order's scope, or who sourced from a supplier already under scrutiny, can find themselves with unexpected liability that exceeds the value of the goods. And if the sourcing decision was made to deliberately avoid a known order, routing goods through a third country, the situation escalates significantly. That scenario is covered in our prior article on transshipment enforcement.

• Wrong Tariff Classification. Every imported textile and apparel product needs a tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”). The classification affects the duty rate, trade preference eligibility, and whether any quota or antidumping order applies.

  In the textile and apparel space, classification is complicated. Hundreds of tariff provisions contain nuanced distinctions based upon numerous technical characteristics. Proper classification frequently requires careful legal analysis in addition to technical product information. Even seemingly minor classification errors can result in additional duties, penalties, delayed release, or expanded CBP scrutiny.

  What surprises many importers is that the misclassification does not need to be intentional. If CBP concludes that a reasonably careful importer would have classified the product differently, a penalty can follow even without any intent to evade duties.

• Undervalued Goods. CBP also scrutinizes the declared value of textile and apparel shipments closely.

  Customs valuation frequently involves issues that are not readily apparent from the commercial invoice alone. Importers often encounter valuation questions involving assists, design work, tooling, royalty payments, or other additions required under U.S. customs law. Determining whether these amounts must be declared requires a careful analysis of the governing valuation rules and the specific commercial arrangements involved.

  Importers who do not know this, or who rely on a supplier to handle the customs paperwork without understanding the rule themselves, often end up undervaluing their goods unintentionally. The result is unpaid duties and potential penalty exposure under the same Section 592 framework that applies to origin fraud.

What Actually Happens After CBP Flags a Shipment.

CBP enforcement does not look the same in every situation, but the common thread is that things move quickly and the importer is always behind.

A CF-28 Request for Information is typically the first formal step, CBP asking for documentation to support a specific entry. It can look routine. It is not. How you respond, what supporting documentation is presented, how the legal issues are framed, and what you say can determine whether this stays at the administrative level or becomes a penalty case.

Although a CF-28 may appear to be a routine request for additional information, experienced importers recognize that the response often shapes the direction and scope of CBP’s review. Decisions made at this stage can have consequences that extend well beyond the individual shipment at issue.

A seizure notice means goods have been physically detained. At that point the clock is already running on petition deadlines and forfeiture proceedings.

An EAPA investigation, triggered when a domestic producer alleges antidumping duty evasion, can impose interim measures that affect not just the shipment under investigation but every entry you make while the investigation is pending.

In all of these situations, you are managing business disruption, accumulating costs, and hard legal deadlines at the same time. That combination is exactly when mistakes happen, and exactly when the decisions you make have the most lasting consequences.

These matters move fast, the rules are technical, and the stakes are real. A few things are worth understanding clearly before any enforcement contact occurs.

• Your supplier's misrepresentation is not your defense. That legal responsibility cannot simply be shifted to the foreign supplier, freight forwarder, customs broker, or manufacturer. You may have contractual claims against a supplier who lied to you, but that does not protect you from CBP. CBP generally holds the importer of record responsible for compliance with U.S. customs law regardless of where the underlying error originated.

• Voluntary disclosure can help, but only when done right. A well-structured disclosure filed before CBP opens a formal investigation can significantly reduce penalty exposure. However, determining whether voluntary disclosure is available, appropriate, or strategically advisable requires careful evaluation of the underlying facts, the timing of CBP’s actions, and the potential legal consequences. A poorly prepared one can alert CBP to violations it had not yet found and make things worse. As discussed in the firm's article on voluntary self-disclosure, the difference between a disclosure that helps and one that hurts comes down to timing, scope, and how it is framed, all of which require legal judgment.

• Missing a deadline can be permanent. Thirty (30) days to respond to a UFLPA detention. Strict windows for seizure petitions. Prescribed deadlines in EAPA proceedings. Missing any of them can mean forfeiture of goods, significant financial consequences, loss of important procedural rights, or a default finding of evasion. In many situations, these consequences are extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible, to reverse.

Early legal involvement frequently provides the greatest opportunity to preserve available rights, evaluate potential defenses, develop an appropriate response strategy, and avoid preventable mistakes before statutory or regulatory deadlines expire. If your textile or apparel shipment has been detained, if you have received a CF-28, CF-29, seizure notice, or EAPA questionnaire, or if something in your supply chain is keeping you up at night, contact us today for a confidential consultation.

We also regularly assist customs brokers, freight forwarders, trade associations, accountants, customs consultants, logistics providers, and referring attorneys whose clients are navigating textile and apparel enforcement matters.

• 1. What products does CBP consider textiles and apparel?

  The category extends well beyond clothing. It includes garments such as shirts, pants, dresses, jackets, hats, underwear, sportswear, and swimwear, as well as home textiles like bed linens, towels, curtains, upholstery fabric, and many industrial and technical textiles. If it is made from woven, knitted, or unwoven fabric, CBP will likely treat it as a textile product.

• 2. Why do textiles and apparel receive so much CBP scrutiny?

  Textile supply chains are complex and historically vulnerable to origin, valuation, forced labor, and duty evasion issues. Combined with UFLPA enforcement and active antidumping orders, these products remain among CBP’s highest enforcement priorities.

• 3. My supplier told me the goods are from Vietnam. Why is CBP questioning the origin?

  CBP does not rely solely on supplier representations. Country-of-origin determinations require applying detailed legal standards to the manufacturing process, making them highly fact-specific. Supplier assurances alone may not establish compliance.

• 4. Can UFLPA affect my shipment even if I am not sourcing directly from China?

  Yes. If any material in your supply chain can be traced to Xinjiang, the UFLPA presumption may apply, even when the finished product was manufactured in another country.

• 5. How do I know if my products are covered by antidumping duty order?

  Determining whether a product falls within the scope of antidumping duty order often requires careful legal and factual analysis. It is not something that can be determined simply by comparing product descriptions.

• 6. I received a CF-28 from CBP. Is that serious?

  Yes. A CF-28 is a formal CBP request for information that can significantly influence the direction of CBP’s review. Because your response may affect whether the matter escalates, obtaining experienced legal guidance before responding is often advisable.

• 7. My supplier handled the customs paperwork. Am I still responsible?

  Yes. Under U.S. customs law, the importer of record is responsible for the accuracy of each customs entry, regardless of who prepared the documentation.

• 8. What happens if I miss a CBP deadline?

  Missing deadlines in UFLPA, seizure, or EAPA matters can result in exclusion or forfeiture of goods, loss of procedural rights, or default findings that may be difficult or impossible to reverse.

• 9. Can voluntary disclosure help?

  It depends. Only when properly evaluated, structured, and submitted before CBP opens a formal investigation. Because voluntarily disclosure involves important legal and strategic considerations, it generally should not be undertaken without experienced legal counsel.

• 10. When should I contact an attorney?

  As early as possible. Whether you receive a CF-28, detention notice, seizure notice, or EAPA questionnaire, early legal involvement often provides the greatest opportunity to protect your rights, evaluate available options, and avoid preventable mistakes.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content herein is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction. Viewing or relying upon this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult with legal counsel regarding their individual circumstances before taking any action based on this material.