<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/22/25 6:02 AM, Dirk Neumann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f1d97c0c-560e-417a-812d-a5dc84ccdfaa@leibniz-lib.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Dear colleagues, </p>
<p>the Executive order suspending the De Minimis Treatment For All
Countries" gets effective on 29 August, 00:01 Eastern Daylight
Time.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/suspending-duty-free-de-minimis-treatment-for-all-countries/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/suspending-duty-free-de-minimis-treatment-for-all-countries/</a></p>
<p>This removed the low-value exemption for all shipments into the
US and introduces measures to increase screening for illegal
substances or drugs. </p>
<p>This may affect postal shipments handled/forwarded within
national postal systems for import to the US / into USPS
systems. DHL parcel, i.e. national German parcel service, (which
is not the same as DHL Express), declared to suspend all
services to the US from 26 August.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As I read this, it seems slightly contradictory, so it would be
good to hear from someone who can penetrate the legal jargon.</p>
<p>That is, the EO states:</p>
<p>"Sec. 2. Suspension of Duty-Free de minimis Treatment. (a) The
duty-free de minimis exemption provided under 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(C) shall no longer apply to any shipment of articles
not covered by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b), regardless of value, country of
origin, mode of transportation, or method of entry. "</p>
<p>But the parameters of 50 U.S.C. 1702(b) include, among them, the
following:</p>
<p>"(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal
communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of
value;"</p>
<p>To my reading, a package that is marked as "no commercial value"
(as museum specimens typically ARE labeled) <b>would</b> be
covered by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b) - if the commercial value is zero,
then <b>by definition</b> it "does not involve a transfer of
anything of value", and then the EO <b>does not apply</b>.</p>
<p>However, the EO states "regardless of value". Does that imply
that it applies even if the value is zero? That would be
contradictory, as it would mean that the EO is applying to
something covered by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b), despite explicitly stating
that it only applies to things <b>not</b> covered.</p>
<p>Myself, I would think that shipments marked as having no
commercial value are NOT subject to this EO, as they are covered
by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b). Maybe very explicit labeling of the package
to <b>state</b> that (e.g., "This package conforms to 50 U.S.C.
1702(b)"), plus reference to this new EO (which should have a
number, but I don't see one indicated in the Order itself).</p>
<p>Would anyone else have a clearer opinion on whether the "no
commercial value" disclaimer would get around this?</p>
<p>Peace,</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 voicemail:951-827-8704
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82</pre>
</body>
</html>