Background
Forrest Xu, a licensed customs broker, held an entry filer code permitting him to file customs entries electronically. After an August 2024 on-site review, U.S. Customs and Border Protection identified regulatory violations and instructed Xu to stop conducting customs business under the impermissible corporate name “Eton Customs Broker Inc.” Customs later sent additional notices concerning that name and alleged misuse of Xu’s entry filer code.
In April 2026, Customs began reviewing the accuracy of importer information Xu had transmitted through the Automated Commercial Environment and requested supporting records for more than 30 Importer of Record numbers. After concluding that Xu’s response omitted requested communications, included incomplete powers of attorney, and contained at least two invalid government-issued identifications, Customs disabled his ability to transmit importer-identity forms and subsequently deactivated his entry filer code. Xu sued and sought emergency relief allowing him to continue using the code; after the court denied a temporary restraining order and reconsideration, he moved for a preliminary injunction.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the preliminary-injunction motion because Xu failed to establish any of the required factors. He did not show a fair chance of success on his due-process claim: the record demonstrated that Customs repeatedly notified him of alleged misuse, warned him of possible consequences, identified the issues under review, requested specific supporting information, and gave him an opportunity to respond before deactivating the code. The court also rejected Xu’s reliance on an earlier Court of International Trade decision involving another broker because that case did not establish that the procedures afforded here were inadequate.
Xu also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. His declarations asserted that he was losing clients, could not compete through manual filing, and might run out of money, but he supplied no financial records, client communications, or evidence of attempted manual filings. The record also contradicted his claim that Customs provided no path to reinstatement: the suspension letter specified the documentation required and stated that Customs would reactivate the code after 180 days if it could verify the sufficiency and validity of Xu’s response.
Finally, the balance of hardships and public interest weighed against relief. Xu had not shown that Customs acted unlawfully, while Customs’ supervision of brokers furthered accurate enforcement of trade laws and protected national security, public health and safety, and federal revenue.
Key Takeaways
- A customs broker seeking preliminary relief must substantiate alleged business losses with evidence beyond self-serving declarations.
- Repeated warnings, a detailed compliance inquiry, and an opportunity to provide supporting records undermined Xu’s claim that Customs summarily deactivated his entry filer code without due process.
- Customs’ interests in enforcing trade laws, protecting national security and public safety, and safeguarding federal revenue outweighed Xu’s unsupported claims of hardship.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding evidentiary burden facing customs brokers who seek emergency judicial relief from an entry-filer-code suspension. Assertions that deactivation will cause lost customers or business closure may be insufficient without financial documents, customer communications, or other corroborating evidence.
It also shows that the Court of International Trade will closely examine the full history of communications between Customs and a broker when evaluating procedural fairness. Advance warnings, specific document requests, an opportunity to respond, and a defined reinstatement process can weigh strongly against preliminary injunctive relief.