Purpose and Use
CF‑28 (Request for Information) is CBP’s fact‑finding instrument. It asks an importer to substantiate the accuracy of an entry covering tariff classification (HTSUS), valuation, country of origin, trade remedy exposure (e.g., Sections 301/232), or preferential duty claims (USMCA/CUSMA, Chapter 98). It is typically issued before liquidation and carries a 30‑day response window (extensions may be granted). Poor or late responses frequently escalate to adverse actions.
CF‑29 (Notice of Action) is CBP’s decision notice. After reviewing the entry (and any CF‑28 response), CBP proposes or takes action: reclassification, value changes, denial of preference, or duty adjustments. “Action proposed” often affords 20 days to respond; “action taken” signals CBP will liquidate accordingly (with protest rights under 19 U.S.C. § 1514). CF‑29 may result in increased or decreased duties, depending on what CBP determines is correct.
CBP and industry advisories consistently emphasize treating both forms as critical compliance events: respond promptly, thoroughly, and with documentary rigor or expect duty consequences and potential penalties.
Differences at a Glance
- CF‑28 = “Tell us more.” Fact‑finding; 30‑day response; no immediate duty change.
- CF‑29 = “Here’s what we’re doing.” Proposed or taken action; duty changes, preference denials, or reclassifications; protest rights apply.
How the Process Typically Unfolds
- Entry filed (CBP’s review window often cited as ~314 days).
- CF‑28 issued when CBP needs additional proof (invoices, BOMs, origin certificates, samples, related‑party pricing detail).
- Importer responds ideally complete, consistent, and well‑supported.
- CF‑29 issued if CBP still finds deficiencies or has enough grounds to act, specifying proposed/taken actions and next steps.
Are CF‑28/CF‑29 Being Used More This Year?
Yes the weight of 2025 trade‑practice reporting points to a noticeable uptick:
- Trade attorneys and brokers report more frequent CF‑28s, linked to tighter enforcement around classification, origin, Chapter 98 claims, and valuation under evolving tariff regimes.
- Industry coverage highlights CBP’s enhanced analytics, enabling broader and faster identification of discrepancies driving more actions (CF‑28 and CF‑29) around country of origin and valuation.
- Brokers flagged that new/stacked tariffs (e.g., 301/232 actions) correlate with increases in CF‑28/CF‑29 as CBP revalidates entries and import bonds face sufficiency pressures.
While CBP does not publish monthly counts of these forms, consistent practitioner reports and trade press indicate heightened issuance in 2025, tied to both policy changes and stronger enforcement posture.
Recent Case Studies
Case 1: Chapter 98 Claim Under Scrutiny CF‑28 Leads to Partial Denial via CF‑29
Sector: Industrial equipment
Trigger: Entry flagged for Chapter 98 duty‑reduction claim; CBP questioned eligibility elements and asked for detailed process records and prior entries’ documentation.
CF‑28: Requested commercial invoices, proof of U.S. repair vs. processing, cost breakdowns, and timelines; 30‑day window.
Response: Importer provided invoices and a general statement but lacked detailed repair logs and serial‑number traceability.
CF‑29 (“Action proposed”): CBP proposed partial denial of Chapter 98 treatment; importer had 20 days to rebut with additional evidence.
Outcome: After incomplete supplementation, CBP issued “Action taken” CF‑29, assessing additional duties on the portion lacking proof; future entries instructed to include serial‑number‑level repair evidence.
Why it matters: Chapter 98 claims are a 2025 enforcement focus; CBP expects granular records failure to provide them in a CF‑28 often becomes a duty bill via CF‑29.
Case 2: Origin and Valuation Re‑Check CF‑28 Escalates to CF‑29 With Rate Advance
Sector: Consumer electronics
Trigger: CBP analytics flagged inconsistencies in country‑of‑origin and transaction value linked to related‑party pricing.
CF‑28: Sought supplier origin evidence (manufacturing addresses, production records), intercompany agreements, transfer‑pricing studies, and proof of assists.
Response: The importer furnished invoices and a basic COO statement but omitted intercompany pricing documentation.
CF‑29: CBP revalued the entries to include assists and adjusted origin on certain lines, resulting in a rate advance and supplemental duty bills.
Outcome: Importer filed protests for some lines and revamped documentation protocols; future entries included BOMs, process flow charts, and related‑party pricing support.
Why it matters: CBP is using CF‑28 to probe origin chains and related‑party valuations; inadequate responses predictably invite CF‑29 duty actions.
Case 3: USMCA Claim Audited Documentation Shortfalls Deny Preference
Sector: Automotive components
Trigger: Post‑entry USMCA refund claim; CEE requested commercial invoices and detailed origin support beyond the certification.
CF‑28 analogue: CBP asked for invoices and supporting origin documents; importer resisted, providing only the USMCA certificate.
Action: CBP denied preferential treatment for lack of requested documentation; subsequent protest was affirmed at HQ, reiterating that CBP may demand additional documents deemed essential (e.g., invoices).
Outcome: Duties assessed; importer instituted stricter recordkeeping and supplier contractual obligations.
Why it matters: Certificates alone are insufficient CBP routinely demands invoices and origin substantiation and can deny preference when records aren’t produced.
Case 4: Misclassification Discovered CF‑28 to CF‑29, Then Protest
Sector: Home goods
Trigger: CBP suspected misclassification (HTSUS code carried a lower rate than correct heading).
CF‑28: Requested product specs, technical sheets, and samples.
Response: Technical documentation was thin; CBP issued CF‑29 (“Action taken”) with new classification and higher duty rate.
Next step: Importer filed a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 post‑liquidation and provided detailed engineering specs; partial relief was granted on certain subheadings.
Why it matters: If the record is weak at CF‑28, CF‑29 will likely follow; the best chance to reverse is a robust protest supported by authoritative specs and rulings.
Case 5: Chapter 98, Origin, and Valuation Combined Multiple CF‑28s in a Quarter
Sector: Apparel & accessories
Trigger: Tariff changes and bond sufficiency alerts coincided with multiple CF‑28s on origin, Chapter 98 claims, and valuation.
Pattern: Importer received three CF‑28s across different entries, each seeking tailored documentation.
Outcome: Two CF‑28s culminated in CF‑29 rate advances; the third was closed favorably after a comprehensive, counsel‑assisted response. Bond limits were recalculated to reflect stacked tariff exposure.
Why it matters: In 2025, CF‑28 volume is up and often correlates with tariff stacking and bond sufficiency reviews; importers should anticipate document demands and adjust bonds proactively.
Guidance for 2026
- Treat CF‑28 as a pre‑decisional audit. Build responses like litigation‑ready filings: complete, consistent, and backed by admissible evidence (invoices, BOMs, process descriptions, origin proofs, transfer‑pricing support). Poor responses are now more likely to be treated as violations themselves.
- Use the timelines wisely. Aim to respond within 30 days for CF‑28; for CF‑29 “action proposed,” use the 20‑day window to submit targeted rebuttal evidence. Where appropriate, consider PSC (pre‑liquidation correction) or protest (post‑liquidation).
- Align supplier contracts. Require timely origin and cost documentation, serial‑number traceability, and process logs especially for Chapter 98 and USMCA claims.
- Monitor enforcement signals. Expect more CF‑28s in sectors touched by tariff changes or analytics‑driven origin/valuation reviews; plan for bond sufficiency and cash‑flow impacts where CF‑29 rate advances are likely.