INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

Could Better Manage 

Its Process to Enforce 

Exclusion Orders

Report to the Committee on Finance, 

U.S. Senate

November 2014

GAO-15-78

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-78, a report to the 

Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate

November 2014

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Could Better 

Manage Its Process to Enforce Exclusion Orders

Why GAO Did This Study

Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, ITC investigates allegations of 

unfair import practices, including 

unlicensed use of intellectual property

rights such as patents, copyrights, and 

trademarks. If ITC finds a violation of 

this law, it generally issues an 

exclusion order that directs CBP to 

deny entry of infringing products into 

U.S. commerce. CBP must determine, 

without inhibiting legitimate trade, 

whether products arriving at 328 U.S. 

ports are covered by exclusion orders. 

GAO was asked to review CBP’s 

enforcement of exclusion orders. This 

report (1) describes CBP’s processes 

for enforcing exclusion orders and (2) 

assesses CBP’s management of its 

enforcement process at ports of entry. 

GAO analyzed CBP and ITC 

documents and data from October 

2009 through April 2014 and 

interviewed CBP and ITC officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CBP update its 

internal guidance with requirements to 

(1) routinely ensure that trade alerts 

are posted to the CBP intranet for each 

exclusion order, (2) routinely identify 

any orders whose changed conditions 

merit a CBP request that ITC rescind 

them, and (3) monitor timeliness of 

trade alert issuance. CBP concurred 

with recommendations one and three 

and described actions planned or 

under way to address them. However, 

CBP did not concur with 

recommendation number two.

According to CBP, it is not mandated 

to identify potentially outdated orders 

and request that ITC rescind them. 

GAO continues to believe the 

recommendation is valid for reasons 

discussed in the report.

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) uses two processes to enforce exclusion orders issued by the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC): a four-phase process to detect and deny 

entry to or seize infringing products at U.S. ports and an administrative ruling 

process that determines in advance of importing whether products are covered 

by exclusion orders. In the first phase of the process to enforce exclusion orders 

at the ports, CBP drafts a trade alert that provides enforcement instructions to 

CBP national targeting groups and local officials at all ports of entry to identify 

shipments for examination; without an alert, officials said, it would be difficult for 

CBP components to enforce an exclusion order. From September 2010 through 

April 2014, CBP excluded 158 shipments of products, such as ink cartridges and 

footwear. Before a company attempts to import a certain product, it may request 

that CBP determine through its administrative ruling process whether the product 

is covered by a particular exclusion order.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Process to Enforce Exclusion Orders at the Ports

CBP’s management of its exclusion order enforcement process at the ports 

contains weaknesses that result in inefficiencies and an increased risk of 

infringing products entering U.S. commerce. First, CBP does not routinely review 

ITC’s list of exclusion orders or take other action to ensure that a trade alert has 

been posted to its intranet for each order. At GAO’s request, CBP reviewed ITC’s 

list of exclusion orders as of April 30, 2014, and reported that it had posted trade 

alerts for 83 of the 94 exclusion orders; however, it posted 17 of the 83 trade 

alerts after GAO’s request for data. Without routinely taking action to ensure that 

trade alerts are posted to CBP’s intranet, infringing products could enter into U.S. 

commerce. Second, CBP does not routinely review ITC’s list of exclusion orders 

to identify orders that may be candidates for rescission by ITC. Requesting 

rescission of exclusion orders could enable CBP to focus its enforcement efforts 

more effectively and efficiently. Third, CBP’s guidance lacks time frames for 

issuing trade alerts, which prevents CBP from monitoring timeliness. GAO found 

that it took CBP from 2 days to 3 months to request a posting of a trade alert to 

the intranet during the period from October 2009 through April 2014. Without 

actively managing trade alerts and establishing time frames for posting alerts, 

CBP management cannot hold staff accountable for timely enforcement of 

exclusion orders, and there is an increased risk of infringing products entering 

U.S. commerce.

View GAO-15-78. For more information, 

contact Kimberly M. Gianopoulos at (202) 512-

8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Letter 1 

Background 4

CBP Uses Two Processes to Enforce Exclusion Orders, 

Depending on Whether Products Have Already Been Shipped 9

Management Weaknesses in CBP’s Enforcement Process at 

Ports Result in Inefficiencies and Increased Risk of Infringing 

Products Entering U.S. Commerce 22

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II U.S. Customs and Border Protection Offices Responsible for 

Exclusion Order Enforcement 36

Appendix III U.S. Customs and Border Protection Centers of Excellence and 

Expertise 37

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 39

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 42

Tables

Table 1: Number of Shipments and Examples of Products 

Excluded or Seized as a Result of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s Enforcement of Exclusion Orders, 

Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2014 18

Table 2: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Centers of 

Excellence and Expertise 37

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Figures

Figure 1: Summary of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s 

Section 337 Investigation Process 4

Figure 2: Exclusion Orders: Types, Unfair Acts Covered, Product 

Categories, and Issuance Dates of Exclusion Orders in 

Effect as of April 30, 2014 8

Figure 3: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Process to 

Enforce Exclusion Orders at the Ports 11

Figure 4: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Process for 

Administrative Rulings to Determine Prior to Importation 

Whether a Product Falls within the Scope of an Exclusion 

Order 19

Figure 5: Status of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Trade 

Alerts for Exclusion Orders as of April 30, 2014 25

Figure 6: Key Customs and Border Protection Offices Involved in 

Exclusion Order Enforcement 36

Abbreviations

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CROSS Customs Rulings Online Search System

DHS Department of Homeland Security

IPR Branch Intellectual Property Rights Branch

IPR-NTAG Intellectual Property Rights National Targeting and 

 Analysis Group

ITC International Trade Commission

OMB Office of Management and Budget

USTR United States Trade Representative

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 19, 2014

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Chairman

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Intellectual property plays an important role in the U.S. economy. The 

nation’s legal and regulatory system of intellectual property rights, 

according to a 2012 Department of Commerce report,1

Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (hereafter referred to as 

Section 337), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigates 

allegations of unfair import practices, including those that infringe on 

intellectual property rights, such as unlicensed use of patents, copyrights, 

and trademarks.

helps establish 

and sustain industries, drives innovation, and facilitates trade and 

commerce. Protecting intellectual property rights against infringement, 

however, is costly and complex. Companies may spend millions in 

litigation to protect their intellectual property rights, and determining 

whether specific imported products infringe on intellectual property rights 

can be complicated, particularly for technologically advanced products. 

Smartphones, for instance, combine software and hardware that undergo 

rapid changes in design and functionality. A single smartphone may have 

features and functions described in over 100,000 patents, including, for 

example, the phone’s rounded corners or the particular finger movement 

needed to unlock the touch screen.

2 If ITC finds a violation of this law, it generally issues an 

exclusion order that directs the Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to deny entry of 

infringing products into U.S. commerce.3

 

1

Department of Commerce, Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in 

Focus (Washington, D.C.: March 2012).

To enforce exclusion orders, 

CBP must determine whether products arriving at 328 U.S. ports of entry 

2

19 U.S.C. § 1337.

3

ITC can issue a “cease and desist” order directing the violating parties to cease certain 

actions in addition to or in lieu of an exclusion order. 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 
 

Page 2 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

fall within the scope of exclusion orders, and as part of its mission, CBP 

endeavors to do so without inhibiting legitimate trade. In this report, we 

refer to the efforts that CBP undertakes to detect imports of infringing 

products as CBP’s enforcement process at the ports. In addition to these 

enforcement efforts, CBP may be asked by companies to determine, in 

advance of importing certain products, whether those products are 

covered by a particular exclusion order, for instance, when a company 

has redesigned an infringing product such that it no longer infringes on 

the intellectual property right thereby falling outside the coverage of the 

exclusion order. In this report, we refer to these anticipatory efforts to 

facilitate enforcement as CBP’s administrative ruling process.4

You requested that we review CBP’s efforts to enforce exclusion orders. 

In this report, we (1) examine CBP’s processes for enforcing exclusion 

orders and (2) assess CBP’s management of its enforcement process at 

ports of entry. In this report, we neither take a position on, nor do we 

address, the matters pending in ongoing litigation between Microsoft and 

DHS related to CBP’s enforcement of an exclusion order.5

To examine CBP’s exclusion order enforcement processes and assess 

CBP management of its enforcement process at the ports, we (1) 

reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and CBP internal guidance, such as 

directives and procedures, and (2) interviewed CBP officials at 

headquarters, the field offices, and the ports, as well as officials at ITC 

and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of the 

Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. We selected ports with 

experience in enforcing exclusion orders as shown by CBP exclusions 

data from September 16, 2010, through April 30, 2014.6

 

4

See Administrative Rulings, 19 C.F.R. Part 177. These regulations detail CBP’s general 

processes to respond to an importer’s request to obtain certainty in its import transaction 

about the admissibility of its product.

We also selected 

ports where we could discuss and observe CBP’s exclusion order 

enforcement process for shipments arriving in land, sea, and air 

environments. We visited the ports of Buffalo and John F. Kennedy 

5

The litigation involves CBP’s enforcement efforts pertaining to an exclusion order issued 

by ITC, finding a violation of Section 337 because certain Motorola products had infringed 

Microsoft’s patent rights. Microsoft Corporation v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al, 1:13-cv 

01063-RWR (D.D.C. July 12, 2013).

6

We used data starting on September 16, 2010, because CBP started tracking exclusions 

in its exclusion order notification and tracking system on this date.
 

Page 3 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

International Airport in New York and Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport 

and Los Angeles International Airport in California. To understand CBP’s 

future exclusion order enforcement efforts, we interviewed CBP officials 

from the Electronics Center of Excellence and Expertise in Los Angeles, 

California; the Industrial and Manufacturing Materials Center of

Excellence and Expertise in Buffalo, New York; and the Pharmaceuticals, 

Health, and Chemicals Center of Excellence and Expertise in New York, 

New York. The information gathered from our site visits cannot be 

generalized to all ports and field offices. We evaluated CBP’s 

management of its enforcement process at the ports against 

requirements established by its own internal guidance and by 

government-wide internal control standards.

7

We conducted this performance audit from November 2013 to November 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We reviewed all exclusion 

orders in effect as of April 30, 2014, and collected CBP data on internal 

trade alerts used for targeting shipments of potentially infringing products. 

We also analyzed CBP data on the number of shipments CBP excluded 

from entry from September 16, 2010, through April 30, 2014. Using ITC 

exclusion order issuance dates and CBP’s data on trade alert issuance 

dates, we analyzed the number of workdays the CBP officials took to 

request a posting of trade alerts to the CBP intranet from exclusion orders 

issued from October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2014. To assess the 

reliability of the data CBP provided to us, we interviewed agency officials 

and reviewed information regarding the underlying data systems and the 

checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data and ensure their 

accuracy and reliability. We found the data sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. For more information about our scope and methodology, see 

appendix I.

 

7

Office of Management and Budget, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, 

OMB Circular No. A-123 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 2004) and GAO, Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 1999).
 

Page 4 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

CBP is responsible for enforcing exclusion orders, which ITC issues upon 

a final determination of a violation of Section 337 and after consideration 

of public interest factors enumerated in the law.8 Unlawful activities 

covered by Section 337 include importing into the United States articles 

that infringe upon certain intellectual property rights or other unfair import 

practices described by Section 337.9 According to ITC, most Section 337 

investigations involve allegations of patent infringement. The ITC 

generally completes a Section 337 investigation within 12 to 18 months, 

according to ITC officials. The length of an investigation may be 

influenced by the number of companies alleged to be importing infringing 

products; the number of patent infringements, or other unfair import 

practices, involved in the allegations; the complexity of the technology 

involved; the ITC staff’s workload; and other factors. The ITC’s 

investigation process consists of the seven steps shown in figure 1 and 

briefly summarized below.10

Figure 1: Summary of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Section 337 Investigation Process

1. Section 337 complaint: A complainant (e.g., the intellectual property 

rights holder) files a complaint containing detailed facts alleging a 

violation of Section 337 and names the proposed respondents—the 

companies alleged to be involved in the manufacture, production, 

sale, or importation of infringing products. In response to a Federal 

Register notice published upon receipt of the complaint, the 

respondents and members of the public may make comments on the 

public interest issues arising from the complaint and potential

 

8

19 U.S.C. § 1337 (d)(1). The ITC may also issue a temporary exclusion order if the 

requirements of Section 337(e) are met (19 U.S.C. § 1337(e)) or where the named 

respondents are found in default under Section 337(g) (19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)).

9

19 U.S.C. § 1337(a).

10Generally outlined in 19 C.F.R. Part 210 and 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

exclusion orders. The complainant may respond to these public 

interest submissions.

2. Decision to institute investigation: The ITC’s Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations examines the complaint for sufficiency and compliance 

with all ITC rules and requirements. The ITC generally makes the 

decision to institute an investigation within 30 to 35 days.11

3. Public notice of investigation: If the ITC determines to institute an 

investigation, it issues a public notice in the Federal Register

commencing an investigation based on the complaint. The notice date 

establishes the official start of the Section 337 investigation. The ITC 

will serve a copy of the complaint and notice of the investigation to all 

respondents named in the investigation and to the embassies in 

Washington, D.C., of the foreign respondents’ countries.

4. Investigation: The ITC delegates the investigation to the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge who assigns the case to an administrative 

law judge to preside over the proceedings. When appropriate, the 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also named as a party to the 

investigation. The presiding judge sets a target date by which the ITC 

investigation should be completed. The parties, including 

complainants and respondents, present information such as evidence 

and arguments with respect to alleged unlawful importations or sales.

5. Initial determination: The presiding administrative law judge holds a 

hearing approximately 8 to 10 months after the public notice of 

investigation. After the hearing, the judge issues an initial 

determination as to whether the respondents violated Section 337 

and, if appropriate, a recommendation for remedy (the recommended 

determination). The initial determination is issued no later than 4 

months before the target date set by the presiding judge for 

completion of the investigation. The ITC invites the parties and the 

public to submit comments regarding the public interest 

considerations through a Federal Register notice published within 30 

days of the issuance of the recommended determination.

6. Review: The ITC may determine to review the initial determination 

within 60 days of its issuance. If the ITC decides to review the initial 

 

11The ITC will decide whether to institute an investigation within 30 days unless certain 

conditions apply such as exceptional circumstances that preclude adherence to the 30-

day deadline. Moreover, the ITC will determine whether to institute an investigation within 

35 days if a motion for temporary relief is filed with the complaint. 19 C.F.R. § 210.10(a).
 

Page 6 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

determination, it identifies the issues under review, and requests 

briefings from the parties, including the complainants and 

respondents, on matters such as the substantive issues affecting 

whether there is a violation and on the remedy. The ITC also requests 

written submissions from the parties, other government agencies, and 

the public regarding remedy, bonding, and public interest.12

7. Final determination: The ITC publishes notice of its final determination 

in the Federal Register. If the ITC determines that there is a violation, 

it also determines the appropriate remedy after considering the public 

interest. The remedies may include an exclusion order. The ITC’s 

determination, the resulting orders, and the record supporting its 

determination are transmitted to the President of the United States, 

the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Secretary of the 

Treasury, and CBP. The exclusion order is e-mailed to CBP on the 

date of issuance for enforcement.

At the end 

of the review period, the ITC issues a final decision to affirm the initial 

determination, modify it, reverse it, or refer the matter back to the 

presiding administrative law judge for further proceedings.

13

There are two types of exclusion orders: general and limited. General 

exclusion orders direct CBP to exclude all infringing products without 

regard to source; limited exclusion orders direct CBP to exclude infringing 

products from a specified company or companies. For example, a general 

exclusion order on infringing printer cartridges may affect all importers of 

printer cartridges, whereas a limited exclusion order directs CBP to 

exclude covered products from named respondents. Based on ITC data,

According to CBP officials, the 

ITC notifies CBP of the exclusion order by e-mail on the same day 

that it issues an exclusion order and thereafter meets with CBP 

regarding the involved exclusion order.

 

12Public interest includes consideration of public health and welfare, competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles, and 

the interests of U.S. consumers.

13Upon the ITC’s issuance of an exclusion order, the USTR, on behalf of the President, 

begins a 60-day review process to decide whether to disapprove the ITC’s determination 

for policy reasons. During this review period, companies are allowed to continue importing 

if they secure a bond, assuming a bond is required. Usually the USTR takes no action with 

respect to the ITC’s determination and the exclusion order remains in effect. The 

complainant can then be compensated for any infringing products imported during this 

period by recovering the bond money through an ITC administered process. If the USTR 

disapproves the ITC’s determination, the products are permitted to enter U.S. commerce. 

The USTR has disapproved an ITC determination one time since the President assigned 

this authority to the USTR in 2005.
 

Page 7 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

there were 94 exclusion orders in effect as of April 30, 2014, about half of 

which were general exclusion orders that affect a greater number of 

companies than limited orders.

Exclusion orders cover a range of unfair acts, such as patent, trademark, 

and copyright infringement, as well as trade dress infringement, trade 

secret misappropriation, false advertising, and false designation of origin. 

Of the 94 exclusion orders in effect as of April 30, 2014, about 60 percent 

involved products such as integrated circuits, computer components, 

consumer electronics products, and chemical compositions that infringe 

U.S. patents. The 94 exclusion orders covered a range of products, such 

as electronic goods; machinery parts; plastic plates, lids, footwear, and 

toys; motor vehicle parts and accessories; energy drinks; and cigarettes. 

Of the 94 exclusion orders, more than half were issued in 2005 through 

2014; the oldest was issued in 1979. Exclusion orders can be active until 

the protected intellectual property rights expire or ITC rescinds the 

orders.14 See figure 2 for an overview of exclusion order characteristics.

 

14For the purposes of this report, “rescission” refers to the revocation, cancellation, or 

repeal of an exclusion order. In this instance, ITC has the authority to rescind an exclusion 

order if it determines that the conditions that required the exclusion order have changed 

such that a rescission is appropriate. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(k) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 (a)(b). 

Definitions of Patents, Trademarks, and 

Copyrights according to the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office

A patent is an intellectual property right 

granted by the government of the United 

States of America to an inventor “to exclude 

others from making, using, offering for sale, or 

selling the invention throughout the United 

States or importing the invention into the 

United States” for a limited time in exchange 

for public disclosure of the invention when the 

patent is granted.

A trademark is a brand name or service mark 

that includes any word, name, symbol, device, 

or any combination, used or intended to be 

used to identify and distinguish the 

goods/services of one seller or provider from 

those of others, and to indicate the source of 

the goods/services. 

A copyright protects original works of 

authorship, such as writings, music, and 

works of art that have been tangibly 

expressed.

Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office | GAO-15-78
 

Page 8 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Figure 2: Exclusion Orders: Types, Unfair Acts Covered, Product Categories, and Issuance Dates of Exclusion Orders in 

Effect as of April 30, 2014

a

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation Number 337-TA-487 resulted in both a 

limited exclusion order and a general exclusion order, but it is enforced by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection as a single exclusion order.
 

Page 9 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

b

The types of unfair acts listed do not total 94 because some exclusion orders may cover multiple 

intellectual property rights. For example, Investigation Number 337-TA-780 covers a utility patent, a 

design patent, and a trademark.

c

According to ITC, trade dress is a product’s total appearance and image, including features such as 

size, texture, shape, colors, and graphics.

CBP uses two processes to enforce exclusion orders: a four-phase 

process to detect and deny entry to or seize infringing products at U.S. 

ports and an administrative ruling process that determines in advance of 

importing whether products are covered by exclusion orders. 

Enforcement efforts begin when CBP receives the exclusion order from 

the ITC.15 CBP’s Office of International Trade and Office of Field 

Operations administer a process for enforcing exclusion orders at the 

ports that involves four phases: issuing trade alerts, targeting shipments, 

examining products, and excluding infringing shipments. CBP’s 

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Branch within the Office of International 

Trade uses an administrative ruling process that upon request, 

determines in advance of importing whether products are covered by 

exclusion orders. (See app. II for an organization chart showing the CBP 

offices involved in the enforcement processes.) Companies with existing 

products or companies that have redesigned products such that they no 

longer infringe on the intellectual property rights, thereby falling outside 

the coverage of the exclusion order, may request that CBP determine 

through its administrative ruling process whether the companies can 

import the specified products without violating the order. CBP officials 

said that these companies generally submit their requests for an 

administrative ruling around the time when the exclusion order is issued.

As shown in figure 3, CBP’s process to enforce exclusion orders at the 

ports has four phases. In the first phase, upon receiving an exclusion 

order from ITC, CBP drafts a trade alert that provides enforcement 

instructions to CBP national targeting groups and officials at all ports of 

entry.16

 

1519 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). 

IPR Branch officials said the trade alert generally triggers CBP’s 

enforcement at the ports; without an alert, officials said, it would be 

difficult for CBP components to enforce an exclusion order. In the second 

16CBP national targeting groups develop targeting strategies for identifying shipments with 

products subject to exclusion orders. 

CBP Uses Two 

Processes to Enforce 

Exclusion Orders, 

Depending on 

Whether Products 

Have Already Been 

Shipped

CBP Uses a Four-Phase 

Process to Enforce 

Exclusion Orders at the 

Ports
 

Page 10 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

phase, the national targeting groups and local port officials may develop 

targeting strategies for each exclusion order to detect shipments with 

potentially infringing products for examination. In the third phase, port 

officials examine targeted shipments to determine whether the products 

are covered by exclusion orders. Lastly, port officials exclude or seize 

shipments with infringing products, notify importers and ITC of exclusions, 

and document exclusions in a CBP tracking system.
 

Page 11 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Figure 3: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Process to Enforce Exclusion Orders at the Ports

Notes: Not shown in the graphic is CBP’s exclusion order enforcement process during the United 

States Trade Representative’s 60-day review period. During this review period, companies are 

allowed to continue importing if they secure a bond in advance of importing products, assuming a 

bond is required.
 

Page 12 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

a

CBP officials said that companies interested in determining whether their existing or redesigned 

products are covered by exclusion orders generally submit their requests for an administrative ruling 

around the time that CBP receives notice of the exclusion order from ITC. See the discussion of 

CBP’s administrative ruling process later in this section.

b

After an importer’s first excluded shipment, ITC generally will issue a seizure and forfeiture order to 

CBP, which directs CBP to seize, rather than merely deny entry to, any future shipments of the same 

infringing products from the importer.

Using information from the exclusion order, IPR Branch officials, 

sometimes with assistance from CBP’s Electronics Center of Excellence 

and Expertise (Electronics Center),17 draft trade alerts with enforcement 

instructions to national targeting groups and local port officials. The trade 

alert generally includes information such as a description of the protected 

intellectual property right, names of the companies known to import 

infringing products, specific enforcement instructions, and the CBP 

national groups responsible for targeting shipments. According to 

standard operating procedures, IPR Branch officials post the trade alert 

on the CBP intranet, an internal network that officials said is accessible to 

all CBP officials. Upon receipt of any additional information from the ITC 

or the complainants,18

The second phase of CBP’s enforcement process involves the 

development of national and local targeting strategies to help identify 

shipments with products covered by exclusion orders for possible 

examination.

the IPR Branch updates trade alerts as necessary. 

IPR Branch officials told us that the trade alert generally triggers CBP’s 

enforcement at the ports; without an alert, officials said, it would be 

difficult for all CBP components to enforce an exclusion order.

 

17In fiscal year 2012, CBP launched Centers of Excellence and Expertise to provide a 

single point of contact for participating importers when processing their shipments. Each 

center provides support to importers within key industry sectors and consists of CBP staff 

at U.S. ports with related commodity expertise. As of November 2014, CBP officials said 

that 1 of the 10 centers—the Electronics Center—was fully established and participated in 

CBP’s enforcement of exclusion orders. For more information on the centers, see app. III. 

18Throughout this report, “complainant” refers to the party in an ITC investigation who 

initiated the investigation and whose intellectual property rights or domestic industry is 

protected by an exclusion order. “Respondent” refers to a party in an ITC investigation 

whose product or products are alleged to infringe the intellectual property rights of the 

corresponding complainant, or who has otherwise been proved to have committed unfair 

acts or methods of competition in violation of Section 337 (e.g., trade secret 

misappropriation). 

Phase 1: Issuing Trade Alerts

Phase 2: Targeting Shipments
 

Page 13 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

National targeting: At the national level, the Intellectual Property Rights 

National Targeting and Analysis Group (IPR-NTAG) or the Electronics 

Center develops targeting strategies for identifying shipments with 

products covered by exclusion orders. Using information found in the 

trade alerts and other sources, officials from these groups analyze data 

on countries of origin, ports of entry, transportation modes, importers, 

shippers, and manufacturers to develop strategies. According to 

Electronics Center officials, information from meetings with complainants 

and respondents may help inform the development of their targeting 

strategies.

To carry out national targeting strategies, IPR-NTAG and Electronics 

Center officials primarily use two targeting methods: user-defined rules 

and cargo hold requests.

• User-defined rules: Based on their analysis, officials may create a 

user-defined rule, which is a set of criteria that is entered into CBP’s 

national targeting system.19

 

19CBP’s Automated Targeting System compares traveler, cargo, and conveyance 

information against law enforcement, intelligence, and other enforcement data to support 

CBP in identifying individuals and cargo that need additional review across the different 

means of transportation. 

If an incoming shipment meets the criteria 

established in the rule, the system will identify the shipment for 

potential examination. User-defined rules provide continuous targeting 

of shipments arriving at all ports for as long as the rule exists in the 

system. IPR-NTAG officials said they generally test a rule for 1 to 2 

weeks to determine the number of shipments identified for 

examination and, of those shipments examined, the number found not 

to contain infringing products (negative exams). Based on the 

resulting proportion of negative exams, officials will adjust the rule to 

avoid overtargeting and ensure that the number of shipments 

identified by the rule does not inhibit the flow of legitimate trade. 

Officials said that targeting with user-defined rules is straightforward 

for limited exclusion orders because these identify infringing importers 

and may also specify the shipments’ countries of origin and ports of 

entry. For example, officials developed a user-defined rule for a 

limited exclusion order covering certain digital televisions; the 

exclusion order listed the companies known to import infringing 

products. By contrast, officials said that national targeting with userdefined rules may not be feasible for general exclusion orders 
 

Page 14 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

because these are broadly scoped and user-defined rules can only be 

refined up to a point. General exclusion orders tend to cover products 

that fall under a general description, such as rubber-soled shoes, with 

a large volume of shipments and from multiple companies and 

countries of origin. As a result, user-defined rules for some general 

exclusion orders would identify hundreds of shipments for 

examination at multiple ports, resulting in numerous negative exams, 

thus inhibiting the flow of legitimate trade.

Officials said that user-defined rules are revised based on targeting 

results and any new information from complainants and respondents. 

If user-defined rules do not result in the detection of infringing 

shipments over time, officials will terminate them. However, targeting 

officials may create a new user-defined rule if a complainant reports to 

the IPR Branch that it is finding products within U.S. commerce that 

should have been excluded, or if a complainant gains new information 

on companies that are importing infringing shipments.

• Cargo hold requests: Officials said that if they cannot create userdefined rules, as in the case of a general exclusion order, they may 

manually review the information in their cargo and targeting systems 

and identify incoming shipments for examination based on information 

in the trade alert.20

Unlike user-defined rules, cargo hold requests apply only to 

shipments at specific ports and occur only when officials conduct 

manual reviews of information on arriving shipments. IPR-NTAG 

officials said they review information on incoming shipments as part of 

their regular job duties, but they noted that exclusion order 

enforcement is one of many enforcement activities they must 

When they identify such shipments, officials send 

cargo hold requests to specific ports designating the shipments to be 

pulled for examination. These cargo hold requests may provide 

information such as the relevant exclusion order; a link to the trade 

alert; examination instructions; information relating to the importer, 

manufacturer, or products; and contact information for any necessary 

follow-up communication with the targeting groups.

 

20In addition to its Automated Targeting System, CBP may also consult its Automated 

Commercial Environment, a system that processes information on shipments submitted by 

importers and exporters, enabling CBP to learn more about incoming shipments.
 

Page 15 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

conduct.21

Local targeting: Local port officials may conduct local targeting for 

exclusion orders when resources are available and such targeting would 

not duplicate national targeting efforts. Port officials told us they 

specialize in the commodities that commonly arrive at their ports and use 

their expertise to analyze data on incoming shipments to identify 

suspicious shipments for examination. According to port officials, local 

targeting methods include developing local user-defined rules, generating 

cargo hold requests, and conducting port-based operations, which are

targeting exercises conducted within a specific time frame on specific 

shipments of products at specific ports.

As a result, these officials said the number of cargo holds 

requested varies based on how individual officials prioritize their 

responsibilities to manage their workloads.

22 Port officials also told us that the 

amount of local targeting conducted varies based on how individual 

officials prioritize their responsibilities to manage their workloads.

Based on the results of the various targeting methods, port officials may 

examine products in the identified shipments to determine whether the 

products are covered by exclusion orders. Officials at the ports we visited 

told us that they will frequently seek guidance from IPR Branch officials 

when determining whether a product is covered by an exclusion order. At 

the initiative of the complainant, CBP officials may receive training in 

determining how products in shipments may infringe upon the intellectual 

property rights of the complainant’s product. For example, Electronics 

Center officials said that a company that produces inkjet printer cartridges 

contacted CBP and arranged to provide training to port officials on the 

features of its cartridges and how to determine if imported products 

violate the company’s patents. In addition, CBP officials may use 

specialized equipment to gain additional information on the imported 

products. For example, to quickly determine if imported pills contain 

 

21CBP enforces laws for 40 other government agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention.

22IPR-NTAG officials said though they have initiated operations for other types of 

intellectual property enforcement, they had not initiated operations of this nature for 

exclusion order enforcement as of April 2014. 

Local Operation: Interlocking Laminate

Flooring

From March to May 2014, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) officials at the Port of 

Los Angeles/Long Beach said they conducted 

an operation targeting shipments of 

interlocking laminate flooring, which is 

covered by a general exclusion order. Based 

on their research, officials had found that 70 

percent of the companies importing infringing 

products imported them through this port. Port 

officials said they targeted 58 shipments; 26 

of the 58 shipments, or 45 percent, contained 

products that were covered by the exclusion 

order. As a result of the operation, officials 

said that the importers began sourcing their 

shipments from licensed manufacturers to 

comply with the exclusion order.

Source: CBP. | GAO-15-78

Phase 3: Examining Products
 

Page 16 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

formulas that are covered by an exclusion order, port officials told us they 

use handheld tools that can scan powder in pills and report the formula 

used. CBP officials can also consult a network of six internal labs to 

conduct analyses on products as part of their fact finding. For example, 

Electronics Center officials said they use the electronics lab in San 

Francisco, California, if they must examine a high-tech product with 

complex patents, such as mobile phone software or hardware.

If port officials determine that a product is covered by an exclusion order, 

CBP excludes the shipment from entering U.S. commerce and notifies the 

importer of its action. At this point, the importer may decide to return the 

shipment to the port of origin or export it to another country.23 After an 

importer’s first excluded shipment, ITC generally will issue a seizure and 

forfeiture order to CBP, which directs CBP to seize, rather than merely 

deny entry to, any future shipments of the same infringing products from 

the importer.24 Once ITC issues the seizure and forfeiture order, CBP 

officials said they update the trade alert and targeting instructions in the 

targeting system so that port officials know to seize any future shipments 

of the infringing products.25 However, if port officials determine that a 

product is not covered by an exclusion order, the shipment is released for 

entry into the United States.26

Port officials enter data on excluded or seized shipments into CBP’s 

exclusion order notification and tracking system. Developed in 2010 in 

response to a GAO recommendation, the system enables port officials to 

enter excluded shipments into the system and document the date, time, 

 

23According to an IPR Branch official, an ITC exclusion order generally allows an importer 

whose shipment has been excluded to request a warehouse entry or an application for 

foreign trade-zone admission from CBP. The official further explained that an importer can 

also protest an exclusion by filing a protest with the director of the port where the 

exclusion occurred. 

2419 C.F.R. § 210.75(b)(6).

25According to CBP, if a shipment is seized pursuant to an ITC seizure and forfeiture 

order, the importer can file a petition for administrative relief pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1618 

or, by filing a claim and cost bond, seek judicial review in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 

1608. 

26Port officials may allow a shipment to enter the country and then take up to 30 days to 

determine whether the product is covered by an exclusion order. If CBP determines that 

the product is covered by an exclusion order after it has entered into U.S. commerce, CBP 

will demand redelivery of the shipment. See 19 C.F.R § 113.62(d).

Phase 4: Excluding Infringing 

Shipments
 

Page 17 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

location, and action taken for each excluded shipment.27

When CBP seizes counterfeit products at ports, it notifies the affected 

intellectual property rights holders. However, when CBP denies entry to 

or seizes products that are covered by an exclusion order, CBP does not 

inform the complainants. In our 2008 report, we found that some 

companies do not consider CBP’s enforcement of exclusion orders to be 

transparent because of this lack of communication from CBP, which may 

impede the complainant’s ability to protect its intellectual property rights, 

independently and in collaboration with CBP. We recommended in that 

report that CBP examine whether it has the statutory authority needed to 

develop regulations that would allow CBP to notify complainants of 

infringing shipments that have been excluded, and if authorized, to 

develop such regulations.

The system then 

electronically notifies the port director and the IPR Branch of the 

exclusion or seizure. The port director sends a letter explaining the 

exclusion or seizure to the importer, the IPR Branch, and the ITC.

28 CBP subsequently determined that it did not 

have the required statutory authority and identified the need for legislative 

action, which it believed would help strengthen enforcement efforts. 

According to CBP officials, increased communication with complainants 

regarding exclusions could provide complainants with the opportunity to 

provide CBP with information to help revise its targeting strategies. In 

March 2011, the administration recommended that Congress give DHS 

the authority to notify intellectual property rights holders when infringing 

products have been excluded or seized pursuant to an exclusion order.29

 

27CBP developed this system in response to a recommendation in our 2008 report that 

CBP collect data on the number of exclusions (denials of entry), in total and per exclusion 

order. See GAO, Intellectual Property: Federal Enforcement Has Generally Increased, but 

Assessing Performance Could Strengthen Law Enforcement Efforts, 

According to CBP, as of September 2014, Congress had not enacted this 

recommendation into law.

GAO-08-157 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2008). CBP officials said that they do not track the number of 

examinations that did not result in exclusions.

28GAO-08-157. 

29Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Administration’s White 

Paper on Intellectual Property Enforcement Legislative Recommendations (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2011).
 

Page 18 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

CBP’s enforcement of exclusion orders from fiscal years 2010 through 

2014 resulted in the exclusion or seizure of 158 shipments of various 

kinds of products. See table 1.

Table 1: Number of Shipments and Examples of Products Excluded or Seized as a Result of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s Enforcement of Exclusion Orders, Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2014

Fiscal year

Number of 

shipments 

excluded or seized a Examples of products in excluded shipments

2010 4 Magic cube puzzles, ink cartridges, coaxial cable connectors

2011 22 Plastic plates and plastic lids, ink cartridges, cigarettes, coaxial cable connectors, 

transceivers, energy drinks

2012 64 Plastic food storage containers with resealable lids, ink cartridges, footwear, sucralose, 

cigarettes, coaxial cable connectors, phones, toner cartridges

2013 34 Ink sticks, ink cartridges, footwear, cigarettes, cell phone cases

2014 34 Laminate flooring, footwear, digital multimeters, cigarettes, cell phone cases, massagers

Total 158 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. | GAO-15-78

a

For fiscal year 2010, the data are incomplete. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not 

begin tracking exclusions in its exclusion order notification and tracking system until September 16, 

2010. For fiscal year 2014, CBP provided data on exclusions through April 30, 2014.

CBP officials explained that several factors may limit the number of 

shipments that CBP excludes:

• First, unlike the importers of counterfeit products, the respondents in 

exclusion order cases tend to be legitimate companies that seek to be 

in compliance with trade laws; thus, they generally do not intentionally 

attempt to import infringing products.

• Second, respondents may work to resolve issues, such as finding new 

suppliers, obtaining licenses, or redesigning products, so that they do 

not have shipments of products excluded at the ports.

• Third, the conditions related to the underlying patent, trademark, or 

other protectable rights associated with the exclusion order may 

change, such that the complainant or respondent or both are no 

longer in business, or the infringing products are no longer made.

• Finally, CBP officials noted that data on excluded shipments are 

underreported because of alternative actions that can be taken by 

CBP for shipments of products that are covered by an exclusion order 

but are also protected by a recorded trademark. In such cases, CBP 
 

Page 19 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

officials will seize the shipment as a trademark violation rather than 

deny it entry under an exclusion order. Officials told us that 

complainants would rather have CBP seize these infringing products 

than risk the possibility that importers might try to reship the products 

to the United States through another port.

Prior to importing, a company may request that CBP determine through 

its administrative ruling process whether its products fall within the scope 

of an exclusion order.30

Figure 4: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Process for Administrative Rulings to Determine Prior to Importation Whether 

a Product Falls within the Scope of an Exclusion Order

According to CBP officials, companies may 

redesign their products in an attempt to remove products from the scope 

of exclusion orders. In other instances, companies may request an 

administrative ruling before they start to import (1) a redesigned product, 

(2) a new product, or (3) a product that was not accused at ITC but is 

potentially within the scope of the exclusion order. Upon a company’s 

request and when CBP determines it to be in the interest of the sound 

administration of customs and related laws, CBP will undertake to issue a 

ruling letter on whether the product in question is subject to exclusion. 

Figure 4 provides an overview of the administrative ruling process CBP 

uses to determine whether a new or redesigned product is covered by an 

exclusion order.

Requests for an administrative ruling are submitted in writing to CBP’s 

IPR Branch. Each request is entered in CBP’s Regulations and Rulings 

Directorate’s case management system. Upon receipt, a ruling request is 

 

3019 C.F.R. Part 177. These regulations detail CBP’s general processes to respond to an 

importer’s request to obtain certainty in its import transaction about the admissibility of its 

product.

CBP Uses an 

Administrative Ruling 

Process in Advance of 

Importing to Determine 

Whether Products Are 

Covered by Exclusion 

Orders
 

Page 20 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

assigned to a case attorney who reviews the request and other relevant 

materials, including the exclusion order, a sample of the product, the 

patent and the prosecution history, and the ITC’s initial and final 

determinations. If the case attorney has a question about a specific point 

in the ITC record, the attorney may contact ITC to seek clarification on the 

specific issue.31

A CBP administrative ruling is generally effective upon its issuance by 

CBP. Within 90 days from issuance, the decision is made public and 

published in CBP’s Customs Ruling Online Search System.

At this time, CBP also meets with the respondent to 

discuss the request for an administrative ruling.

32 Once the 

ruling is public, copies of the decision will be provided to the complainant 

and the ITC. For rulings that have been in effect for less than 60 days, 

generally, CBP may decide to revoke a ruling simply by giving written 

notice to the person to whom the original was issued.33 A revocation may 

occur, for example, if CBP discovers that facts relevant to the ruling were 

misrepresented in the request, or if changing circumstances materially 

affect the basis of CBP’s determination in the ruling. After 60 days, CBP 

must adhere to additional requirements if it decides to revoke a ruling, 

such as publishing a notice proposing the revocation and inviting public 

comment.34 CBP officials noted that if CBP issues an administrative ruling 

that approves the new or redesigned product for entry, the product is still 

potentially subject to examination at the ports to ensure compliance. From 

September 16, 2010, through April 30, 2014, the IPR Branch issued 18 

rulings, of which 13 ruled that the products were not infringing and could 

enter U.S. commerce. In addition, the importer with an administrative 

ruling that approves a redesigned product may also ask for a CBP 

certification on its product. The CBP certification confirms that the 

redesigned product is not covered by an exclusion order.35

 

31CBP and ITC officials noted that ITC does not provide guidance to CBP on products that 

were not the subject of ITC’s original Section 337 investigation.

32The 90-day time frame is set by 19 C.F.R. § 177.10. 

3319 C.F.R. § 177.12.

34Id. 

35According to CBP officials, the approval of a certification is entirely at the discretion of 

CBP. CBP officials also noted that the acceptance of a certification for the purpose of 

entry does not establish any precedent as to CBP’s acceptance of the certification for 

future shipments. 
 

Page 21 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Currently, CBP’s administrative ruling process is an ex parte process 

where only the importer requesting the ruling participates in the process, 

not the complainants in the original case that resulted in the exclusion 

order. IPR Branch officials told us that they are developing a proposal for 

an inter partes process within CBP’s administrative ruling process that 

would enable the complainant as well as the importer that has requested 

a ruling to provide information before CBP issues its administrative ruling 

on the product. The proposed process would allow both the complainant 

and the importer to make arguments and rebut those of the other party. 

IPR Branch officials noted that the proposed inter partes process will 

have advantages over the current process because it will gather 

information from both the complainant and the importer, potentially 

enabling CBP to expedite its administrative ruling process. IPR Branch 

officials could provide no estimate as to when the proposed inter partes

process will be finalized.36

In anticipation of a possible request for an administrative ruling and to 

increase their understanding of the exclusion order in general, CBP 

officials may meet with officials from the ITC and with the complainants 

and respondents involved in the ITC’s Section 337 investigations. 

Officials said that these meetings can provide them with useful 

information, especially if an administrative ruling is being considered or 

requested by the respondent. For example, since the summer of 2013, 

according to IPR Branch officials, CBP and ITC have regularly held 

meetings upon the issuance of a new exclusion order. CBP and ITC 

officials characterized the nature of these meetings as limited to CBP 

seeking clarification on issues that ITC addressed during its investigation. 

IPR Branch officials also access a secure web-based repository 

established by ITC to review the ITC’s administrative record, such as the 

 

36According to CBP officials, a draft “notice of proposed rule-making” (notice) that would 

institute the inter partes process within its administrative rulings process has been 

completed. The notice explains the need for creating the inter partes procedures and 

proposes that a new subsection be added to existing regulations. The notice must be 

reviewed and cleared by CBP and approved by the Department of the Treasury. CBP will 

then give the public 60 days to submit comments on the notice. After the public comment 

period has closed, CBP must analyze the comments and respond to them and incorporate 

any changes to the proposed regulations. Once this process has been completed, the 

draft final rule must be reviewed and cleared again by CBP and approved by the 

Department of the Treasury prior to publication in the Federal Register. As of October 

2014, the draft notice was with CBP’s Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings Directorate, which is responsible for shepherding the document 

through the internal and interagency review process.
 

Page 22 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

initial and final determinations and documentation of the ITC proceedings, 

to understand the questions of law and issues of fact raised in the 

investigation. In addition to their meetings with ITC, CBP officials from the 

IPR Branch and the Electronics Center may meet separately with 

complainants and respondents on an informal basis during the Section 

337 investigation or after an exclusion order is issued. These meetings 

are typically initiated by the complainants and respondents, although the 

Electronics Center is in regular communication with companies it serves 

as part of its mission. During these meetings, the complainants may 

share useful information on the intellectual property rights at issue and 

highlight relevant findings in the investigation, while respondents may 

explore whether their products are covered by an exclusion order or 

discuss potential redesigns for their infringing products. Electronics 

Center officials said they met with 16 complainants and 31 respondents in 

fiscal year 2013 to discuss information on supply chains, transportation 

modes, ports of entry, and distribution networks. In addition, since fiscal 

year 2013, the Electronics Center has collaborated with the IPR Branch 

on five administrative rulings.

CBP’s management of its exclusion order enforcement process at the 

ports contains weaknesses that result in inefficiencies and an increased 

risk of infringing products entering U.S. commerce. First, CBP does not 

routinely review ITC’s list of exclusion orders or take other action to 

ensure that a trade alert has been posted to its intranet for each order. As 

a result of our audit, CBP reviewed ITC’s list of exclusion orders as of 

April 30, 2014, and reported that it had posted trade alerts for 83 of the 94 

exclusion orders; however, it posted 17 of the 83 trade alerts after our 

request for data. Without routinely taking action to ensure that trade alerts 

are posted to the intranet, there is an increased risk that infringing 

products could enter into U.S. commerce. Second, CBP does not 

routinely review ITC’s list of exclusion orders to identify orders that may 

be candidates for rescission by ITC.37

 

37For the purposes of this report, “rescission” refers to the revocation, cancellation, or 

repeal of an exclusion order. In this instance, ITC has the authority to rescind exclusion 

orders if it determines that the conditions that required the exclusion order have changed 

such that a rescission is appropriate. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(k) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 (a)(b).

As a result of our inquiry, CBP 

identified 6 exclusion orders as possible candidates for ITC rescission. 

Requesting rescission of exclusion orders could enable CBP to focus its 

enforcement efforts more effectively and efficiently. Third, CBP’s 

Management 

Weaknesses in CBP’s 

Enforcement Process 

at Ports Result in 

Inefficiencies and 

Increased Risk of 

Infringing Products 

Entering U.S. 

Commerce
 

Page 23 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

guidance lacks time frames for issuing trade alerts, which prevents CBP 

from monitoring timeliness. We found that it took CBP from 2 days to 3 

months to request a posting of a trade alert to the intranet during the 

period from October 2009 through April 2014. Without actively managing 

trade alerts and establishing time frames for posting alerts, CBP 

management cannot hold staff accountable for timely enforcement of 

exclusion orders, and there is an increased risk of infringing products 

entering U.S. commerce. We reported on similar weaknesses in our 2008 

report on federal intellectual property enforcement efforts at the border.38

CBP’s IPR Branch has issued official guidance on enforcing exclusion 

orders and tracking exclusion order enforcement. This guidance is found 

in a federal regulation,39 an internal directive, and an internal document 

detailing standard operating procedures. IPR Branch officials said that the 

standard operating procedures issued in 2010 provide the most current 

guidance on exclusion order enforcement.

CBP does not routinely review ITC exclusion orders or take other action 

to ensure that trade alerts exist or to identify orders that may be 

candidates for rescission by ITC. As previously discussed, the first phase 

of the process for enforcing exclusion orders at the ports involves issuing 

trade alerts to trigger CBP’s targeting and enforcement efforts. CBP 

guidance on exclusion order enforcement states that the IPR Branch will 

issue trade alerts with enforcement instructions to national targeting 

groups and local port officials; the IPR Branch issues trade alerts by 

posting them to the CBP intranet.40

 

38

While federal internal control 

standards state that management should conduct periodic reviews, 

reconciliations, or comparisons of data to assess the quality of 

performance over time, CBP’s guidance does not require IPR Branch 

GAO-08-157. 

3919 C.F.R. § 12.39.

40Officials told us that the CBP intranet, which was developed in 2004, is accessible to all 

CBP staff in headquarters, field offices, and ports.

CBP Provides Exclusion 

Order Guidance within 

Several Documents

CBP Does Not Routinely 

Review ITC Exclusion 

Orders or Take Other 

Action to Ensure 

Enforcement Coverage 

and Efficiency
 

Page 24 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

officials to conduct routine reviews of exclusion orders for these 

purposes.41

IPR Branch officials told us that they had not conducted a review of ITC’s 

list of exclusion orders in 5 years. In response to our request for data, IPR 

Branch officials reviewed ITC exclusion orders in effect as of April 30, 

2014, to determine whether the IPR Branch had issued a trade alert for 

each order. According to ITC data, there were 94 exclusion orders that 

CBP was required to enforce as of that date. The IPR Branch reported 

that it had posted trade alerts on CBP’s intranet for 83 of the 94 exclusion 

orders. However, our analysis of the data found that the IPR Branch had 

posted trade alerts on the intranet for 17 of these orders in early April 

2014, after receiving our data request.42

 

41OMB Circular No. A-123 and 

For the remaining 11 of the 94 

exclusion orders, IPR Branch officials reported that they had not posted 

trade alerts to the intranet, as stated in CBP guidance. These 11 

exclusion orders, plus the 17 exclusion orders posted on the intranet in 

April 2014, were part of a group of 28 older exclusion orders, for which 

IPR Branch officials explained that they had created trade alerts either in 

paper form or in another electronic system. However, they had never 

transferred these alerts to the intranet when CBP began issuing trade 

alerts on its intranet in 2004. As a result of our review, officials found they 

had not created a trade alert in any form for 1 of these 28 exclusion 

orders. Figure 5 shows the status of CBP’s trade alerts for exclusion 

orders as of April 30, 2014.

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Internal control, in the broadest 

sense, includes the plan of organization, methods, and procedures adopted by 

management to meet its goals. 

42ITC issued these 17 exclusion orders between 1990 and 1997.
 

Page 25 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Figure 5: Status of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Trade Alerts for Exclusion Orders as of April 30, 2014

a

This exclusion order was issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in February 2005. 

An official from CBP’s Intellectual Property Rights Branch said CBP did not issue a trade alert for this 

exclusion order because CBP had no record of having received a notice from ITC that the exclusion 

order had been issued. ITC officials provided us with a copy of an ITC letter notifying CBP of the 

exclusion order; however, these officials did not have documentation confirming CBP’s receipt of the 

letter. According to ITC officials, in 2005 CBP officials would receive hand-delivered copies of the 

exclusion order; however, ITC officials now transmit exclusion orders via e-mail. As a result of our 

review, CBP officials said they contacted the complainant involved in the exclusion order in July 2014 

and were informed that the complainant was unaware of any infringing importations following the 

exclusion order’s issuance in February 2005. CBP issued a trade alert for this exclusion order in July 

2014.

For 10 of the 11 exclusion orders that did not have trade alerts on the 

intranet, IPR Branch officials said they decided not to post trade alerts to 

the CBP intranet in April 2014 because officials considered these orders 

candidates for ITC rescission. According to a federal regulation, any 

person may file a petition to request that ITC rescind an exclusion order if 

he or she believes that changes in conditions of fact or law or the public 

interest require rescission.43

 

4319 C.F.R. § 210.76(a).

According to an IPR Branch official, CBP 

believed that the conditions related to the underlying patent, trademark, or 
 

Page 26 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

other protectable rights for these 10 orders had changed; for example, the 

complainant named in one exclusion order was no longer in business. 

IPR Branch officials later decided that they would not request that ITC 

rescind 2 of these orders because discussions with complainants 

established that the exclusion orders should remain active; the IPR 

Branch posted trade alerts for these to the intranet in July 2014. In 

addition, according to IPR Branch officials, the intellectual property rights 

protected by 2 other exclusion orders that were candidates for rescission 

expired in July 2014. As a result, the IPR Branch sent a letter to ITC in 

August 2014 requesting that it rescind 6 exclusion orders.44

CBP’s lack of routine reviews of exclusion orders has resulted in gaps 

and inefficiencies in CBP’s exclusion order enforcement. For the 27 

exclusion orders with trade alerts in either paper form or in another 

electronic system, IPR-NTAG reported that it had not implemented 

national targeting strategies for these exclusion orders. If any targeting 

occurred, IPR Branch officials said it would have been initiated at the port 

level.45 As a result of these targeting gaps, there is an increased risk that 

infringing products could have entered into U.S. commerce.46 For the 1 

exclusion order without a trade alert, a routine review of ITC’s exclusion 

orders by CBP officials would have identified the error sooner. In addition, 

with routine reviews of ITC’s list of exclusion orders, officials could have 

identified the ones that were candidates for rescission sooner and 

requested that ITC rescind them, potentially allowing CBP to more 

effectively and efficiently focus its enforcement efforts. This is not a new 

problem. In our 2008 report, we found similar weaknesses.47

 

44Based on CBP’s letter to the ITC, the ITC published a notice in the Federal Register

seeking public comments as to whether the 6 exclusion orders should be rescinded in 

whole or in part based on changed conditions of fact or law or the public interest pursuant 

to 19 C.F.R. § 210.76. See 79 Fed. Reg. 64214 (Oct. 28, 2014). Written submissions are 

due on December 22, 2014, and reply submissions on January 15, 2015. 

We reported 

45While CBP does not track local targeting efforts, CBP records excluded shipments and 

the national targeting methods used to identify them. Our analysis of CBP’s data on 

exclusions related to the 27 exclusion orders without trade alerts posted on the intranet 

found two exclusions that were the result of local targeting. These two exclusions occurred 

in fiscal year 2010 and were related to 1 of the 27 orders with no trade alert on the 

intranet. 

46IPR Branch officials said that 2 of the 27 exclusion orders were older trademark-based 

orders and seizures were made because of trademark violations. 

47GAO-08-157. 
 

Page 27 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

that CBP had posted trade alerts to its intranet for 24 of the 66 orders that 

were in effect as of July 2007, and had not yet transferred paper alerts for 

15 older exclusion orders to the intranet because of limited resources. We 

also noted that CBP had trade alerts for 5 orders that had expired or had 

been rescinded.

IPR Branch officials have not established a time frame in CBP’s guidance 

for issuing trade alerts, which prevents officials from monitoring 

timeliness. Federal internal control standards state that management 

should establish procedures, such as time frames, to ensure that the 

agency is meeting its objectives and document these procedures in 

policies or directives. In addition, monitoring the effectiveness of internal 

control activities, such as determining timeliness, should occur in the 

normal course of business.48

An IPR Branch official said that the IPR Branch’s approach to issuing 

trade alerts has evolved since 2006 toward an increased emphasis on 

timeliness. IPR Branch officials said they generally try to post a trade alert 

to the CBP intranet within 5 workdays of receiving an exclusion order 

from ITC. Prior to 2006, the official told us that the IPR Branch wanted to 

gain a full understanding of the exclusion order and the intellectual 

property rights in question before issuing a trade alert, but more recently, 

according to this official, the IPR Branch has placed more importance on 

providing information as quickly as possible so the national targeting 

groups can more promptly develop targeting methods.

Our analysis of CBP’s data shows that for 33 exclusion orders issued 

from October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2014, the IPR Branch generally 

took anywhere from 2 days to about 3 months to request a posting of a 

trade alert to the intranet.49

 

48OMB Circular No. A-123 and 

For 9 of the 33 exclusion orders, about 27 

percent, CBP requested a posting of trade alerts to the CBP intranet 

within 5 workdays of exclusion order issuance. Without established time 

frames for issuing trade alerts in its guidance on enforcing exclusion 

orders, CBP cannot do the following:

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

49In our 2008 report, we found that it took CBP more than 60 days to post trade alerts for 

14 of the 18 exclusion orders for which it could provide such data. See GAO-08-157. 

CBP Lacks Established 

Time Frames for Issuing 

Trade Alerts
 

Page 28 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

• CBP cannot monitor and assess its performance on timeliness, which 

increases the risk of enforcement gaps. The longer it takes the 

national targeting groups to receive trade alerts and develop targeting 

approaches that will identify shipments for examination at the ports, 

the greater the risk that infringing products covered by an exclusion 

order may be permitted entry into U.S. commerce.

• CBP management cannot hold staff accountable for timely 

enforcement. Effective internal control, such as establishing time 

frames for performance, is a key factor in achieving agency missions 

and program results through improved accountability.50

CBP uses two processes to enforce exclusion orders: one that identifies 

shipments with infringing products arriving at the ports and one that 

determines in advance of importing whether products are covered by 

exclusion orders. These processes leverage information from both the 

complainants and respondents involved in Section 337 cases adjudicated 

by the ITC that result in exclusion orders. CBP’s management of its 

process for enforcing exclusion orders at the ports has weaknesses that 

result in inefficiencies and enforcement gaps. First, CBP does not 

routinely review exclusion orders to ensure that trade alerts exist for all 

ITC exclusion orders. We found that for about one-fourth of the exclusion 

orders in effect during our review, CBP had not posted trade alerts on its 

intranet until after our data request. Without an alert, it would be difficult 

for CBP components to enforce an exclusion order. Second, CBP lacks 

an established procedure that would enable it to routinely determine 

those exclusion orders that are candidates for ITC rescission, potentially 

resulting in fewer exclusion orders and trade alerts to manage, which 

would allow CBP to better focus its enforcement efforts. Third, CBP has 

not established a time frame for trade alert issuance in CBP’s guidance, 

which prevents management from monitoring timeliness in issuing trade 

alerts. In our 2008 report examining CBP’s intellectual property 

enforcement, we found similar weaknesses in its management of 

exclusion order enforcement. Lacking guidance on time frames for key 

steps in exclusion order enforcement, CBP officials cannot hold staff 

accountable for timely enforcement, which is critical to reducing the risk of 

infringing products entering U.S. commerce.

 

50OMB Circular No. A-123. 

Conclusions
 

Page 29 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

To improve CBP’s management of its process for enforcing exclusion 

orders, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 

CBP Commissioner to take the following three actions to update CBP’s 

internal guidance with requirements to

• Routinely ensure that trade alerts are posted on the CBP intranet for 

each exclusion order.

• Routinely identify any orders whose changed conditions merit a CBP 

request that ITC rescind them.

• Monitor timeliness by establishing time frames for issuing trade alerts 

for exclusion orders and reviewing performance against these 

standards.

We provided a draft of this report to CBP, ITC, and USTR for their review 

and comment. We received technical comments from CBP, ITC, and 

USTR, which we incorporated where appropriate. We also received 

written comments from CBP through DHS that are reprinted in appendix 

IV. 

In its written comments, CBP concurred with two of our three 

recommendations: to update CBP’s internal guidance with requirements 

to routinely ensure that trade alerts are posted on the CBP intranet for 

each exclusion order and monitor timeliness by establishing time frames 

for issuing trade alerts for exclusion orders and reviewing performance 

against these standards. As part of its efforts to implement these two 

recommendations, CBP reported that it is developing a template for case 

attorneys to use in developing future trade alerts and that it is updating its 

internal standard operating procedures with requirements for CBP staff to 

monitor the timeliness of posting trade alerts on the CBP intranet. While 

these are positive actions, it is not yet clear whether they will address the 

recommendations to the full extent. We will continue to monitor CBP’s 

actions in this area.

CBP did not concur with our recommendation to update its guidance with 

a requirement to routinely identify any orders whose changed conditions 

merit a CBP request that ITC rescind them. CBP noted that there is no 

statutory or regulatory authority mandating that it monitor the ITC’s list of 

exclusion orders to determine if changed conditions of law or fact would 

warrant the rescission of any of the orders. In addition, CBP asserted that 

ITC, as the issuing agency of exclusion orders, and the relevant 

complainants, or both have responsibility for ensuring that the list of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 30 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

outstanding exclusion orders is current. As we state in the report, any 

person may file a petition to request that ITC rescind an exclusion order if 

he or she believes that changes in conditions of fact or law or the public 

interest require rescission. While CBP is not specifically mandated to 

conduct a routine review of exclusion orders to identify candidates for ITC 

rescission, CBP is the enforcement agency of exclusion orders. Based on 

internal control standards, we reiterate that it is good management 

practice for CBP to conduct these reviews that could potentially allow it to 

more effectively and efficiently focus its efforts by reducing the number of 

exclusion orders it is responsible for enforcing. For example, in response 

to our audit, CBP conducted such a review, identified six exclusion orders 

that it believed were candidates for ITC rescission, and submitted a letter 

requesting that ITC rescind the orders. Thus, we continue to believe that 

our recommendation is valid and that CBP should fully implement it. 

CBP also noted in its written response that the report would have been 

more value-added if it had included additional discussion on the 

challenges of making patent infringement determinations at the border 

under the time constraints imposed by statute, or on the development of 

the inter partes process. These issues CBP mentions were outside the 

scope of our review. However, our report does discuss CBP’s current ex 

parte administrative ruling process and provided details on CBP’s 

development of an inter partes process that would enable both the 

complainant and the importer to provide information during the 

administrative ruling process. As of October 2014, CBP officials could not 

provide an estimate as to when the inter partes process would be 

finalized. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Chairman of the 

U.S. International Trade Commission, the United States Trade 

Representative, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is

available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
 

Page 31 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V.

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos

Director

International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

This report reviews the efforts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to enforce exclusion orders issued by the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC). Specifically, we (1) examine CBP’s processes for 

enforcing exclusion orders and (2) assess CBP’s management of its 

enforcement process at ports of entry. In this report, we neither take a 

position on, nor do we address, the matters pending in ongoing litigation 

between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security related 

to CBP’s enforcement of an exclusion order.1

To provide an overview of ITC exclusion orders, we first reviewed the list 

of exclusion orders on the ITC website as of April 30, 2014, to determine 

the number of exclusion orders that CBP was responsible for enforcing. 

Though ITC’s list named 96 exclusion orders, we interviewed agency 

officials to assess the reliability of the data, and ITC provided clarification 

on duplicate orders or consolidated investigations. As a result of our

interviews, ITC confirmed that 94 exclusion orders were in effect as of 

April 30, 2014. We also interviewed ITC officials regarding the underlying 

data systems and the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the 

data and ensure their accuracy and reliability. We found the data 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We then analyzed CBP 

data on these exclusion orders to determine characteristics such as the 

type of exclusion order (general or limited); the protected intellectual 

property rights (e.g., trademark, copyright, patent); and the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule categorization numbers for the products covered by the 

exclusion orders. We analyzed these numbers to determine the types of 

commodities protected by exclusion orders. To assess the reliability of 

CBP’s data, we interviewed agency officials regarding the underlying data 

systems and the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data 

and ensure their accuracy and reliability. We found the data sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of this report.

To examine CBP’s process for enforcing exclusion orders at ports of 

entry, we reviewed CBP’s internal guidance related to exclusion order 

enforcement. We interviewed agency officials at CBP, ITC, the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement 

Coordinator, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative in 

 

1

The litigation involves CBP’s enforcement efforts pertaining to an exclusion order issued 

by ITC, finding a violation of Section 337 because certain Motorola products had infringed 

Microsoft’s patent rights. Microsoft Corporation v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al, 1:13-cv 

01063-RWR (D.D.C. July 12, 2013).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Washington, D.C., to discuss each agency’s role in facilitating or 

informing CBP’s enforcement of exclusion orders. We interviewed CBP 

headquarters officials to understand CBP’s process for issuing trade 

alerts and communicating them to national targeting groups and local port 

officials. Using the list of exclusion orders on ITC’s website as of April 30, 

2014, we analyzed CBP data to determine whether CBP had issued a 

trade alert for each exclusion order. To assess the reliability of CBP’s 

data, we reviewed issued trade alerts for each of the exclusion orders and 

interviewed agency officials regarding the checks, controls, and reviews 

used to generate the data and ensure their accuracy and reliability. We 

found the data sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.

To determine how CBP develops targeting strategies for enforcing 

exclusion orders, we interviewed agency officials from CBP’s national 

targeting groups for exclusion order enforcement: the Intellectual Property 

Rights National Targeting and Analysis Group in Long Beach and the

Electronics Center of Excellence and Expertise in Los Angeles. To 

understand how CBP examines products and excludes infringing 

shipments at the ports, we interviewed agency officials at four ports: 

Buffalo, New York; John F. Kennedy International Airport in Jamaica, 

New York; Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport in Long Beach, California; 

and Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. We 

selected ports with experience in enforcing exclusion orders based on 

CBP exclusions data from September 16, 2010, through April 30, 2014;2

 

2

We used data starting from September 16, 2010, because CBP started tracking 

exclusions in its exclusion order notification and tracking system on this date.

during this period, a total of 12 ports excluded shipments as part of CBP’s 

enforcement of exclusion orders. We also selected ports where we could 

discuss and observe CBP’s exclusion order enforcement process when 

processing shipments arriving by land, sea, and air. One selected port, 

Buffalo, processes shipments arriving by land; two ports, John F. 

Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport, 

process shipments arriving by air; and one port, Los Angeles/Long Beach 

Seaport, processes shipments arriving by sea. We interviewed port 

officials to obtain information on training received and equipment used by 

CBP officials to determine whether products in shipments are covered by 

exclusion orders. In addition to interviewing port officials, we observed 

them as they targeted and examined shipments, and seized shipments as 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

required. The information gathered from our site visits cannot be 

generalized to all ports and field offices.

To understand CBP’s future exclusion order enforcement efforts, we 

interviewed CBP officials from the Industrial and Manufacturing Materials 

Center of Excellence and Expertise in Buffalo, New York, and the 

Pharmaceuticals, Health, and Chemicals Center of Excellence and 

Expertise in New York, New York. Officials from these centers provided 

us with an overview of how they will eventually take responsibility for 

enforcing exclusion orders related to the industry sectors that their 

centers cover.

We analyzed CBP data on the number of shipments excluded from entry 

from September 16, 2010, through April 30, 2014, including the number of 

exclusions by fiscal year and the types of products excluded during this 

period. CBP officials noted that data on excluded shipments are 

underreported because of alternative actions that can be taken by CBP 

for shipments of products that are covered by an exclusion order but are 

also protected by a recorded trademark. In such cases, CBP officials said 

they will seize the shipment as a trademark violation rather than exclude it 

under an exclusion order. To assess the reliability of CBP’s data, we 

interviewed agency officials regarding the underlying data systems and 

the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data and ensure 

their accuracy and reliability. We found the data sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of this report.

To assess how CBP manages its exclusion order enforcement process, 

we evaluated CBP’s management of the process against CBP criteria in 

its exclusion order guidance, found in a CBP regulation,3

 

3

19 C.F.R. § 12.39.

an internal 

directive, and a document outlining standard operating procedures. We 

also evaluated CBP’s management of the process against requirements 

established in federal internal control standards, such as establishing 

procedures to ensure that the agency is meeting its objectives, 

documenting these procedures in policies or directives, and monitoring 

the effectiveness of internal control activities in the normal course of 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

business.4

To describe CBP’s process for determining, in advance of importing 

certain products, whether those products are covered by exclusion 

orders, we reviewed regulations outlining CBP’s administrative ruling 

process.

We interviewed CBP officials from the Intellectual Property 

Rights Branch in the Regulations and Rulings Directorate to discuss how 

they manage the issuance of trade alerts. We reviewed CBP’s written 

guidance on exclusion order enforcement to determine whether CBP 

documents time frames for issuing trade alerts. Using ITC exclusion order 

issuance dates and CBP’s data on trade alert issuance dates, we 

analyzed the number of workdays that CBP officials took to request 

posting of trade alerts to the CBP intranet for exclusion orders issued 

from October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2014. To assess the reliability of 

CBP data, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed underlying data 

sources. CBP trade alert data are for the dates on which CBP officials 

requested a posting of trade alerts to the CBP intranet and not the dates 

on which the alerts were actually posted. We found the data sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of this report.

5

We conducted this performance audit from November 2013 to November 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We also interviewed CBP officials from the Intellectual Property 

Rights Branch in the Regulations and Rulings Directorate to discuss how 

the ruling process works and CBP’s proposed changes to the process. 

We interviewed ITC officials to discuss the extent to which ITC informs 

this process by providing information on the exclusion orders and the 

administrative records associated with ITC investigations.

 

4

Office of Management and Budget, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, 

OMB Circular No. A-123 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 2004) and GAO, Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 1999)

5

19 C.F.R. § 177.10 Part 177.
Appendix II: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Offices Responsible for Exclusion 

Order Enforcement

Page 36 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of International Trade 

and Office of Field Operations are responsible for coordinating CBP’s 

efforts to enforce exclusion orders. Several units under these two offices 

have key responsibilities in CBP’s enforcement process and its related 

administrative ruling process (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Key Customs and Border Protection Offices Involved in Exclusion Order Enforcement

Appendix II: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Offices Responsible for Exclusion 

Order Enforcement
Appendix III: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Centers of Excellence and Expertise

Page 37 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

In 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) established 10 

Centers of Excellence and Expertise to provide trade information and 

processing for the trade community and U.S. government partners. While 

in their early stages, the centers are intended to facilitate legitimate trade, 

increase CBP’s industry-based knowledge, and assist CBP in addressing 

risks and protecting intellectual property rights more efficiently and 

effectively. Each center is specific to a single industry sector (see table 2).

Table 2: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Centers of Excellence and Expertise

Centers Location

Agriculture and Prepared Products Miami

Apparel, Footwear, and Textiles San Francisco

Automotive and Aerospace Detroit

Base Metals Chicago

Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising Atlanta

Electronics Los Angeles

Industrial and Manufacturing Materials Buffalo

Machinery Laredo

Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Minerals Houston

Pharmaceuticals, Health, and Chemicals New York

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. | GAO-15-78

The centers, with staff located at ports of entry throughout the United 

States, operate as virtual organizations that centralize industry sector 

expertise. For example, the Electronics Center of Excellence and 

Expertise is located in Los Angeles but has staff located in other ports 

that deal with imports of electronics, such as El Paso, Texas; Memphis, 

Tennessee; Cleveland, Ohio; and San Diego, California. Of the 10 

centers, this is the one with a role in the enforcement of exclusion orders 

as of November 2014 (see sidebar).

Appendix III: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Centers of Excellence and 

Expertise
Appendix III: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Centers of Excellence and Expertise

Page 38 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

All centers employ trade specialists with a range of account management 

and operational skills, including import, supply chain, and operations 

specialists. Importers can go directly to their assigned center for 

assistance, instead of consulting CBP officials at multiple ports of entry. 

Center officials are expected to continuously update their industry-related 

expertise for exclusion orders by attending and participating in industry 

conferences, trade forums, enforcement seminars, and online training.

Electronics Center of Excellence and 

Expertise, Los Angeles, California 

The Electronics Center of Excellence and 

Expertise (Electronics Center) is the most 

developed of the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s (CBP) 10 industry-specialized 

virtual centers. As of November 2014, it was

the only center with a role in enforcing 

exclusion orders, specifically the enforcement 

of electronics-related exclusion orders. In 

fiscal year 2013, the Electronics Center 

conducted targeting for 32 exclusion orders.

Electronics Center staff members meet 

informally with the complainants and 

respondents involved in an investigation 

before the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) issues an exclusion order. 

CBP intends for this model of advanced 

collaboration to speed up the exclusion order 

enforcement process because staff will better 

understand the products involved and the 

complainant and respondent companies’ 

trading patterns. In addition, the center’s 

specialists assist CBP’s Intellectual Property 

Rights (IPR) Branch in developing trade alerts 

for exclusion orders involving electronic 

technologies and products. The IPR Branch 

has collaborated with the Electronics Center 

in proactively working with companies to avert 

the importation of infringing products at ports 

and to place CBP in a better position to rule 

on admissibility, rulings, and certification. The 

Electronics Center also conducts its own 

targeting of shipments for exclusion order 

enforcement, with assistance, if necessary, 

from CBP’s Intellectual Property Rights 

National Targeting and Analysis Group. 

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. | GAO-15-78
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 39 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 40 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 41 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-15-78 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Christine M. Broderick (Assistant 

Director), Marisela Perez (Analyst-in-Charge), Christina Bruff, David 

Dayton, Etana Finkler, and Bonnie Ho made key contributions to this 

report. Lorraine Ettaro, Jeffrey Isaacs, and Grace Lui also provided 

assistance.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(321005)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.