[Nhcoll-l] De Minimis removal for imports to the United States

[Douglas Yanega]

On 8/22/25 6:02 AM, Dirk Neumann wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> the Executive order suspending the De Minimis Treatment For All 
> Countries" gets effective on 29 August, 00:01 Eastern Daylight Time.
>
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/suspending-duty-free-de-minimis-treatment-for-all-countries/
>
> This removed the low-value exemption for all shipments into the US and 
> introduces measures to increase screening for illegal substances or 
> drugs.
>
> 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.
>
As I read this, it seems slightly contradictory, so it would be good to 
hear from someone who can penetrate the legal jargon.

That is, the EO states:

"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. "

But the parameters of 50 U.S.C. 1702(b) include, among them, the following:

"(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal 
communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;"

To my reading, a package that is marked as "no commercial value" (as 
museum specimens typically ARE labeled) *would* be covered by 50 U.S.C. 
1702(b) - if the commercial value is zero, then *by definition* it "does 
not involve a transfer of anything of value", and then the EO *does not 
apply*.

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 *not* 
covered.

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 *state* 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).

Would anyone else have a clearer opinion on whether the "no commercial 
value" disclaimer would get around this?

Peace,

-- 
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)
              https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20250822/31938606/attachment.html>