Deep Dive: 2025’s Politics, Logistics, and New Rules

Section 321 is a provision under U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations that allows certain goods to enter the United States without incurring customs duties or taxes. To qualify, shipments must meet the de minimis threshold, which is currently set at $800 per shipment, per person, per day.

The advantages of Section 321 are significant for DTC brands. It helps reduce international shipping expenses, accelerates the cross-border shipping process, and provides these companies with a competitive advantage by lowering overall costs.

The way Section 321 works is straightforward: it exempts shipments valued below the established threshold from paying taxes and duties, simplifying and speeding up the clearance process, allowing goods to reach consumers more quickly and efficiently.

The recent decree by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to restrict textile imports under the IMMEX program marks a critical turning point in the ongoing struggle between global commerce and national security. For years, U.S. eCommerce companies exploited the “border-skipping” loophole, importing goods from China into Mexico and shipping them to the U.S. in smaller shipments valued under $800 to avoid tariffs. This strategy, enabled by the de minimis provision in U.S. law, allowed businesses to circumvent customs duties and take advantage of Mexico’s low labor costs and favorable trade position.

In theory, the decree responds to growing concern in Mexico over the negative impact of imports on its domestic textile industry. Through the restriction of the importation of finished goods and the rise in tariffs on certain textiles, the government is trying to protect local jobs and bolster domestic manufacturing, which the competition for cheaper imported goods has challenged. President Sheinbaum seeks to fill the gap between Mexico’s textile industry and the growing dependency on low-cost imports from countries like China. While those changes will undoubtedly affect U.S. companies that use Mexican warehouses for their eCommerce business, they point out a much bigger problem: the intersection of commerce and national security. This could potentially lead to a shift in the U.S. economy, as companies may need to find allied governments to partner with for alternative sources for their products, potentially impacting jobs and consumer prices.

The decision to limit the IMMEX program and put in place higher tariffs is a response to a few geopolitical and economic factors, including ongoing trade tension between the U.S. and China and broader worries over national security stemming from China’s deepening influence over trade and currency manipulation. As noted in previous discussions, eCommerce giants like Shein have used the de minimis rule to inundate the U.S. market with cheap, often poor-quality, goods while paying no U.S. import duties. While this may benefit consumers by driving down prices, it has tended to weaken the competitiveness of American manufacturers – a likely goal of the Chinese government. It has also provoked national security concerns about what Chinese companies might obtain through consumer data. In response, U.S. policymakers considered measures to protect domestic industries and national security, potentially destabilizing trade dynamics and global commerce.

The new restriction on Mexican textile imports come when global supply chains face significant disruptions. Companies that once depended on Mexican fulfillment centers to are now rethinking their logistics stacks. The new tariffs, including increased apparel imports from 20-25% to 35%, will disrupt operations for many of these eCommerce brands. The additional costs will now have to be absorbed by these brands or alternative sources of supply have to be found. The changes will make it more difficult for U.S. companies to take advantage of Mexico’s IMMEX program, which allowed them to temporarily import raw materials and finished goods for re-export to the U.S. without paying duties.

This new landscape is of significant concern to the smaller and mid-sized brands, many of which had grown accustomed to the advantages of the de minimis provision. Now, these brands, which used to treat Mexico as a low-cost fulfillment hub, are disadvantaged by their larger competitors and burdened by higher import duties and more complex logistics. A large number of these smaller retail companies are looking for new fulfillment centers and 3PL providers to help them navigate this new reality.

The direct consequences of this decree have already started creating ripples up and down the supply chain, including notices from some logistics providers, such as XB Fulfillment, to their customers that they would no longer be able to import apparel into Mexican warehouses. These companies seek ways to mitigate the disruption by searching for other 3PL providers in different regions, such as Canada or the Dominican Republic, where trade agreements may offer more favorable conditions. As the retail sector grapples with these changes, it’s becoming clear that a comprehensive strategy to address these logistical challenges will be necessary.

Without the Shein and Temu conversations, we wouldn’t be having conversations about the Mexico Loophole.

This new policy shift also brings attention to the broader national security issues tied to global commerce. The intersection of retail and national security has become increasingly evident, especially as tensions between the U.S. and China continue to escalate. As I mentioned in my last post on December 28, 2024, the confluence of increased influence by China in global eCommerce has created a perfect storm of vulnerabilities across the global supply chain. Retailers now must consider how their dependence on foreign suppliers and international logistics can be a double-edged sword, exposing them to economic risks and potential security threats.

De Minimis Revisited

The rise of eCommerce companies in China, such as Shein, which has rapidly developed into one of the world’s biggest clothing brands, is emblematic of how the old demarcation lines between commerce and national security are blurring. By capitalizing on low-cost, small-batch production, data-driven demand forecasting, and a vast digital presence, Shein’s business model has disrupted traditional retail channels. Being based in China, Shein has faced questions regarding its collection of data and potential ties to the Chinese government’s broader surveillance efforts. These are not theoretical issues; there are practical consequences. Without the Shein and Temu conversations, we wouldn’t be having conversations about the Mexico Loophole.

The consequences of these problems go beyond the eCommerce companies themselves. The very nature of the global supply chain is increasingly a complex battleground, where governments are more actively engaging in the regulation of trade practices that could have economic consequences. The United States has been focusing on lessening its dependence on Chinese products, notably in strategic sectors such as technology and manufacturing (CHIPS Act). This change is furthered by the growing recognition that global supply chains are susceptible to geopolitical disruptions. As seen during the Suez Canal crisis, when shipping traffic was disrupted due to attacks by Iranian-backed forces, the flow of goods can be instantly halted with far-reaching economic consequences. The Suez Canal is only one example of the susceptibility of the retail sector to geopolitical instability in a crucial artery for global trade.

Looking ahead, U.S. eCommerce companies will need to reevaluate their reliance on the loopholes of the de minimis provision and the IMMEX program. As the recent restrictions by Mexico show, governments are taking a more proactive role in regulating international trade to protect domestic industries and national interests. The disruptions caused by these changes underscore the importance of developing a more resilient and diversified supply chain strategy. This is not just a challenge, but an opportunity for companies to be proactive and prepared for the changing global trade landscape. Those companies that can move the fastest and embrace new trade routes, such as those via the Dominican Republic, will be best positioned to navigate these challenges.

The Dominican Republic as An Alternative

I recently did a bit of research on this matter and in doing so, I had the opportunity to help a flagship direct-to-consumer brand navigate their acute scenario: millions of dollars in their products, stuck in San Diego, awaiting payment of steep duties.

Larimar Logistics offers a feasible alternative to companies seeking a strategy away from Mexico as a reliable substitute for traditional fulfillment centers with access to U.S. markets while avoiding potential risks arising from the newly imposed tariffs by Mexico. These benefits come with added value to the brands via the beneficial trade agreements and expanding infrastructure of the Dominican Republic, maintaining continuity in their low-cost and efficient delivery of orders, thereby bypassing growing import costs from Mexico.

While the lines between commerce and national security continue to blur, companies must continue being agile and proactive regarding anything to do with their approach toward supply chain management. These changes are a big challenge, but they open opportunities for companies to rethink and re-strategize plans to build their global operations more resiliently and securely.

Research, Data, and Writing by Web Smith