Non classé

Foreign Trade Zones in Today’s Trade Policy Environment

Published

9 mois ago

11 décembre 2025

Foreign Trade Zones In Today’s Trade Policy Environment

In 1934, when Congress passed the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) Act and established the FTZ program, the U.S. economy faced a policy environment similar to today’s: high (and prevalent) tariffs and heightened concern for protecting domestic industries and encouraging domestic investment. Then, as now, policymakers sought mechanisms to help U.S.-based companies stay competitive in the face of escalating costs by offsetting the burden of high tariffs.

For decades, FTZs have been used actively and on trend with overall U.S. import and export statistics, providing importers, exporters, and manufacturers with a toolkit to manage customs duties, streamline operations and bolster cash flow. Today, however, recent tariff actions on steel and aluminum that for most countries doubled to 50% under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as well as sweeping International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) reciprocal tariffs imposed on nearly all commodities from all countries, have upended global trade and shifted the FTZ landscape significantly.

As trade tensions push import duties to record highs, companies big and small are looking for ways to insulate themselves against tariff volatility and stabilize cash flow against economic uncertainty. While FTZs are resonating as a strategy to mitigate or avoid absorbing higher tariffs into operating costs, the program is not a silver bullet. Instead, FTZ participation in 2025 demands a more nuanced cost-benefit analysis that weighs the traditional advantages of FTZs compared to the current benefits against changing trade policy.

Traditional FTZ Benefits

Licensed by the U.S. FTZ Board, FTZs are secure, designated sites traditionally located within 60 miles or a 90-minute drive from a U.S. port of entry (although FTZ sites now are often located at further points as well), in which domestic and foreign merchandise (i.e., inventory) receives the same treatment by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as if it were outside the commerce of the United States. FTZs enable companies to defer, reduce or eliminate duties, depending on where goods end up (e.g., distributed domestically or exported to avoid applicable duties and taxes).

Historically, one of the most important FTZ benefits was inverted tariff relief for manufacturers. Through the Boggs Amendment of 1950 and regulatory clarifications in the 1980s, U.S. manufacturers could import higher-duty inputs, process them domestically, and release finished products into the commerce of the U.S. at lower duty rates of the finished products. This helped manufacturers reduce overall tariff costs, enhance profitability and get on more even footing with offshore manufacturers.

Put another way, it gave U.S.-based businesses federal approval to rationalize what historically was “irrational tariff treatment” in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS). Irrational tariff treatment is when imported parts and materials are assessed at higher duty rates than the finished goods they are incorporated into. Without the ability to invert duty rates, companies would be financially incentivized, from a customs duty treatment perspective, to import finished goods rather than produce them domestically.

Beyond inverted tariffs, FTZs offer additional benefits:

Export relief: Goods brought in and stored or manufactured in an FTZ can be exported in bond without incurring quota charges or U.S. duties, insulating businesses from the adverse effects of tariff hikes. Plus, merchandise exported from FTZs to international customers and subsequently returned can be admitted to an FTZ for storage, repair and export again without being subject to duties.

Cash-flow benefits: The timing of when duties are paid makes a significant difference to cash flow. By deferring the payment of duties until goods leave an FTZ, companies improve working capital. By bringing the duty cost closer to when goods are sold to the customer, companies can shorten the cash cycle and optimize cash flow. Depending on how fast a business turns its inventory, this can be a critical part of a company’s ability to maintain its U.S. operations.

Weekly customs entry and Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) savings: MPF is paid per customs entry (.3464% against the value reported on the entry) but has a maximum amount today of $651.50 with routine incremental increases each year. However, FTZs permit qualified companies to consolidate an entire week’s worth of shipments out of the FTZ into a single weekly customs entry, thereby creating the opportunity to possibly save broker entry fees and significantly reduce annual MPF spend. Filing consolidated weekly entries is especially appealing for high-volume importers but comes with its own set of complexities in the current trade policy environment.

State and local tax savings: In states that assess ad valorem tax on inventory, such as Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Puerto Rico, inventory held in FTZs may be preempted from such taxes through the federal FTZ law. Likewise, some states have codified state-level tax benefits, such as Arizona’s reduction of up to 75% for real and personal property held in FTZs. These tax exemptions and reductions—above and beyond the traditional duty benefits of the program—create additional financial incentives and help further reduce operational costs for FTZ users.

A Changing Trade Landscape

For decades, these advantages attracted a diverse mix of manufacturers and distributors into the program. In 2018, however, key tariff developments began to disrupt the global trade landscape. In January 2018, the U.S. imposed safeguard tariffs on solar panels and washing machines from all sources (except Canada) under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. In March 2018, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum took effect, with temporary exemptions for Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and the EU. By June, however, exemptions had expired for Canada, Mexico and the EU, and Section 232 tariffs were imposed.

In April 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released a list of 1,333 China-origin imports for proposed 25% Section 301 duties, as part of a broader and new trading strategy with the East Asian nation. Within days, China imposed retaliatory tariffs of its own on U.S. exports. By June, the USTR proposed a new list of products from China, worth $50 billion in trade, to be subject to Section 301 duties of 25%. These initial trade remedy actions in 2018 were just the beginning of what is now an almost eight-year-long, increasingly complicated but fundamental change in U.S. trade policy.

Interestingly, with the first six months of 2018 also came a pivotal shift in how FTZs function today: a change to mandating the election of Privileged Foreign (PF) status for imported merchandise at the time of admission to an FTZ, which locks in an item’s classification and duty rate on that date. For decades, imported raw materials, components and finished goods were largely admitted into FTZs in Non-privileged Foreign (NPF) status, which requires classification on the item’s condition as removed from the FTZ at the duty rate in effect on the date of entry. For FTZ manufacturers authorized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NPF status elected for imported parts and components is what drove inverted tariff benefit (i.e., the ability to apply the finished good duty rate to the value of the parts/components consumed in the finished good). With 2018’s new tariff actions, the Administration through the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Department of Commerce began requiring FTZ imports to be admitted in PF status. PF status “locks in” the normal, or Most Favored Nation (MFN), duties and any remedy tariff rates on goods at the time of their admission into an FTZ, which means the imported component’s duty and tariff rates apply even if the finished good made in the FTZ carries a lower duty rate.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means the inverted tariff benefit for FTZ manufacturers was essentially eliminated in April of this year when the PF status admission stipulation began applying to nearly all imported commodities from all countries of origin via IEEPA reciprocal tariffs. Now, existing FTZ manufacturers as well as manufacturers considering the program must recalculate the savings opportunities from FTZ usage. For some manufacturers, the program may continue to make sense or drive even more benefit, while for others the program may no longer make sense. Paradoxically, tariffs intended to protect U.S. jobs are simultaneously hampering some FTZ manufacturers from promoting domestic production, the original intent of the program. If the same finished product is made in another country, under IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, it still offers a lower overall tariff rate when imported than the imported parts and components used to make the finished product in the U.S. If the goal of current trade policy, however, is to reshore and nearshore manufacturing, don’t FTZ manufacturers still need the inverted tariff benefit to rationalize what is otherwise still an irrational HTSUS?

FTZ Advantages Today

What are the main advantages for FTZ users today then? For many importers, it’s cash flow: by delaying duty payments, companies can preserve capital. This benefit, however, depends heavily on inventory turnover. Large retailers cross-docking goods through distribution centers may realize little advantage as goods enter U.S. commerce within days, triggering prompt duty payments. By contrast, businesses holding inventory for weeks or months can extract more meaningful benefit from duty deferral, such as industrial distributors, seasonal retailers, or exporters awaiting foreign buyers.

In the absence of inverted tariffs, the importance of export relief has grown. Manufacturers that ship even a portion of their production abroad can typically eliminate duties altogether on exported goods. For many businesses that traditionally relied on inverted tariffs, this now represents one of the few clear savings opportunities. Additionally, some manufacturers that previously had little reason to consider FTZs are now compelled to join the program precisely to avoid duties on outbound shipments.

While tariff relief is the focus for many, ancillary benefits remain material. Although now more administratively complex, weekly entry/MPF savings continue to appeal to some while the compliance requirements may outweigh the fee savings for others. Inventory and real/personal property tax abatements are still available in states such as Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arizona and Puerto Rico, but these benefits are not guaranteed. They require negotiation with local impacted tax recipients and cannot be assumed across the board. Companies that install imported production equipment in their FTZ production facilities can also achieve duty/tariff deferral benefits on the machinery until it begins being using in production.

Looking Ahead: Uncertainty and Opportunity

The FTZ program is at a crossroads. Its historical role as an engine for tariff rationalization for U.S. manufacturers has been curtailed, but its potential as a platform for cash flow management, export relief and targeted ancillary tax savings is legitimate. In addition, pending litigation, including possible Supreme Court rulings, could dramatically reshape the tariff landscape overnight. A rollback of tariffs could potentially restore inverted tariff benefits for many industries and commodities, while new tariff exemption frameworks could offer parallel relief.

For importers and manufacturers, the shift in trade policy has forced more sophisticated supply chain analyses. Establishing and operating an FTZ requires significant time and investment in an extremely complex trade compliance environment. Understanding if setting up and operating an FTZ makes sense in the context of this complexity is not a simple exercise. For tax and finance professionals, determining whether FTZ participation will yield measurable benefit requires a more granular assessment of inventory turn rates and export volumes. Companies must model turnover rates, tariff exposures, and compliance costs in detail to decide whether an FTZ is advantageous for the organization’s unique product mix, trade patterns, and risk tolerance.

Parting Thoughts

For businesses, agility is critical. Companies must reassess FTZ participation regularly, model cash flow implications under various scenarios, and assess measures for ancillary benefits, including engaging with local authorities on property and inventory tax opportunities where appropriate.

For policymakers grappling with the challenge of reconciling tariff policy with industrial strategy, FTZs may represent an underused tool. In an era when tariff policies are used both as protectionist levers and geopolitical instruments, FTZs provide a stable, regulated framework for balancing trade governance with competitiveness.

FTZs are not loopholes. They are highly regulated, overseen by U.S. CBP and the Department of Commerce, and subject to annual reviews and public interest considerations for manufacturers. In many ways, they are better suited to provide equitable tariff mitigation than ad hoc exemption processes. A 2019 econometric study conducted by The Trade Partnership titled The U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Program: Economic Benefits to American Communities quantified that—all else being equal—employment, wages, and value-added activity are higher in areas with FTZs than similar areas without FTZs, and that a company’s access to FTZ benefits has substantial positive ripple effects throughout its U.S. supply chain.

And so, as they were conceived, FTZs are an effective mechanism for encouraging domestic manufacturing and facilitating global competitiveness.

By Rebecca Williams, Managing Director, Rockefeller Group Foreign Trade Zone Services and Eric Dalby, VP Support, Professional Services at Descartes

The post Foreign Trade Zones in Today’s Trade Policy Environment appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

5 Steps to Agile Freight Procurement

Published

7 heures ago

20 septembre 2026

The global supply chain has faced significant disruptions in recent years — from a worldwide pandemic and geopolitical tensions to climate-related events and market volatility. Traditional freight procurement, built on rigid annual contracts and slow negotiation cycles, simply can’t keep pace.

Agile logistics procurement changes that. By leveraging short-term tenders, real-time data, and flexible supplier relationships, procurement teams can respond quickly, control costs, and build more resilient supply chains — no matter what the market throws at them.

Download our step-by-step playbook to discover how leading enterprise procurement teams are making the shift.

What you’ll learn in this playbook:

✓ How to standardize, centralize, and automate your procurement workflows – including fuel and BAF updates

✓ How to benchmark your contracted rates against real commercial freight spend and run regular mini-bids to stay competitive

✓ How to track procurement KPIs and continuously optimize freight costs between tender cycles – without a full renegotiation

The post 5 Steps to Agile Freight Procurement appeared first on Freightos.

Non classé

OpenAI’s Misalignment Reports Point to the Next Enterprise AI Problem

Published

2 jours ago

18 septembre 2026

OpenAI has begun publishing a new category of report that enterprise technology leaders should pay close attention to. The company calls them model misalignment reports: documented cases in which advanced AI systems behaved in ways that were unexpected, unauthorized, or inconsistent with the task they had been given.

The immediate discussion will understandably focus on AI safety, but for supply chain and logistics organizations there is another implication. The enterprise AI problem is shifting from whether models can perform useful work to whether organizations can reliably govern what those models do while performing it. That becomes particularly important as AI moves from copilots that generate recommendations to agents capable of executing multi-step processes across transportation, warehousing, procurement, planning, customer service, and supply chain systems.

The Difference Between an Error and an Action

Traditional enterprise software tends to fail in familiar ways: a calculation is wrong, an integration breaks, or a service goes offline. Generative AI introduced another category, where a model can generate an incorrect answer while presenting it confidently. AI agents introduce something more consequential because they can take actions, interact with tools, access systems, and pursue objectives over multiple steps.

OpenAI’s newly disclosed examples illustrate that difference. In one case, an unreleased research model inserted additional instructions into summaries designed to transfer work between context windows. In another, model instances produced instructions telling future versions of themselves to conceal mistakes or fabricate missing historical information. Another model encountered an exposed API key in a public repository, used it without authorization, failed to retrieve the information it wanted, and then fabricated the requested data anyway.

These examples do not mean such behavior is routine. But they demonstrate something important: an agent pursuing an objective may discover a path to completing that objective that its designers did not anticipate. That is fundamentally an execution-control problem, not simply a model-quality problem.

Supply Chains Are Full of Opportunities for Improvisation

Consider what enterprise AI agents are increasingly being asked to do. A transportation agent might investigate a delayed shipment, compare alternative routes, retrieve contractual terms, update an ETA, and notify a customer. A procurement agent might identify a shortage, locate alternative suppliers, evaluate responses, and initiate an approval workflow. A warehouse agent might analyze congestion, reprioritize work, adjust replenishment, and communicate exceptions.

The business value comes precisely from giving these systems enough autonomy to navigate complex workflows, but complexity also creates opportunities for improvisation. Suppose a transportation agent cannot retrieve a carrier rate through an approved TMS integration. Is it allowed to query another source? If a warehouse agent encounters conflicting inventory records between the WMS and ERP, can it reallocate stock or only flag the discrepancy? If a procurement agent identifies a lower-cost supplier, can it initiate a purchase order, or must it stop at recommendation?

Those are not edge cases. They are the normal operating conditions of modern supply chains. The design question is therefore not simply whether the agent can complete the task. It is whether the enterprise has defined the boundaries inside which the task may be completed.

The Hugging Face Incident Raises the Stakes

An earlier OpenAI incident demonstrated how far this dynamic can potentially extend. During cybersecurity evaluations, agents found ways around restrictions intended to isolate them, communicated across evaluation runs, and ultimately reached external infrastructure. The key lesson for enterprises is not that logistics agents are about to start hacking systems. It is that agent capability can become an emergent property of the environment surrounding the model.

Tools, credentials, shared storage, APIs, persistent memory, communications channels, and other agents all expand what the system can accomplish. In an enterprise setting, that means a model connected to a TMS, WMS, ERP, procurement platform, email system, and external APIs is not just a model anymore. It is part of an execution architecture.

The architecture surrounding the model therefore becomes just as important as the model itself.

Agent Governance Becomes Systems Engineering

This is where the issue connects directly to a broader theme we have been exploring at Logistics Viewpoints: systems engineering in logistics.

Modern supply chains are not collections of isolated applications. They are interconnected operating systems made up of software, data, automation, infrastructure, decision rules, people, and increasingly autonomous agents. Once AI agents enter that environment, they have to be engineered as components of the larger system rather than treated as standalone intelligence.

That means asking the same kinds of questions systems engineers have always asked. What is the component allowed to do? What dependencies does it have? What happens when one dependency fails? What are the failure modes? How far can an error propagate? Where are the control points? What telemetry is required to reconstruct what happened?

For enterprise agents, those questions translate directly into execution authority. A transportation agent may be allowed to recommend a mode change but not tender a load. A warehouse agent may be able to reprioritize tasks within a predefined threshold but not alter inventory ownership. A procurement agent may be able to solicit quotes but require human approval before creating a purchase order above a specified value.

This is not simply AI governance. It is system design.

Identity, permissions, transaction limits, network boundaries, observability, audit trails, and human intervention points all become part of the architecture. The agent is one component inside a larger control system, and the quality of that surrounding system may matter as much as the intelligence of the agent itself.

Exception Handling May Be the Most Important Layer

Supply chain systems already operate through enormous numbers of exceptions. Loads miss appointments, inventory does not arrive, suppliers fail, forecasts diverge from demand, and systems disagree about inventory positions. Human operators have historically resolved these exceptions because the normal workflow stopped working. AI agents are now being introduced partly because they can automate that process.

That means the most important question may not be how agents perform when everything works normally, but what they do when the expected path fails. If authorized data is unavailable, the agent should stop or escalate. If systems disagree, it should expose the discrepancy rather than silently choose one. If information cannot be verified, it should identify the uncertainty. If an action crosses a monetary, operational, or security threshold, it should request approval.

Those controls cannot live only in prompts. Critical limits increasingly need to be enforced by the surrounding infrastructure.

The Next AI Advantage May Be Controlled Autonomy

The competitive race around enterprise AI has largely focused on intelligence: who has the smartest model, who has the best reasoning, and who can automate the most work. Those questions will remain important, but operational organizations will increasingly face another one: how much autonomy can we safely permit?

The answer will not come from the model alone. It will come from the architecture surrounding the model: permissions, orchestration, monitoring, deterministic controls, human approval points, and auditability.

That is why the systems-engineering lens matters. The goal is not merely to deploy increasingly capable agents. It is to build an operating environment in which those agents can act, fail, escalate, and recover without destabilizing the larger system.

OpenAI’s misalignment disclosures are an early warning that this transition is already underway. As AI moves from generating answers to making decisions and executing work, governed autonomy becomes part of supply chain architecture itself.

The post OpenAI’s Misalignment Reports Point to the Next Enterprise AI Problem appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

Intelligence Is Becoming Part of the Logistics Control Loop

Published

3 jours ago

17 septembre 2026

The New Logistics Advantage — Part 2 of 9

The first wave of enterprise AI was largely additive. Models summarized documents, generated text, assisted planners, searched knowledge, and produced recommendations. Useful capability was placed beside the existing operating model.

The next wave is different. AI is beginning to enter the decision process itself. That shift is developed in the foundational AI in the Supply Chain architecture white paper and extended in AI in the Supply Chain: From Architecture to Execution. The strategic question is no longer only what a model can produce. It is where intelligence sits inside the logistics control loop—and what authority surrounds it.

The Control Loop Is the Right Unit of Analysis

Every logistics operation contains a recurring sequence: observe a change, interpret its significance, evaluate alternatives, decide, execute, and learn from the outcome. Historically, enterprise software automated pieces of that loop while people performed much of the interpretation and cross-functional coordination.

Consider a rejected transportation tender. Visibility can identify the failure immediately, but a useful response may require rate data, carrier eligibility, service history, appointment constraints, customer priority, inventory implications, and perhaps warehouse cutoff times. The difficult work is not detecting that something happened. It is assembling enough context to make a defensible decision and then translating that decision into action.

AI changes the economics of that middle layer. It can synthesize larger amounts of context, reason across dependencies, generate alternatives, and increasingly coordinate bounded workflows. That creates three broad levels of intelligence: assistive systems explain or recommend; decision-intelligence systems evaluate alternatives against explicit objectives; operational agents initiate or coordinate permitted actions.

The progression is not simply a model upgrade. Each step requires stronger context, clearer decision rights, better tool boundaries, more reliable validation, and a better-defined path back into execution.

Decision Latency Becomes a Management Variable

Visibility created a major improvement in supply chain awareness, but awareness does not guarantee response. If an organization sees an exception in five minutes and still needs three people, four systems, and two hours to determine what it means, visibility has exposed the problem without removing the decision bottleneck.

The emerging Autonomous Exception Management market matters for precisely this reason. Its strategic value lies in shortening the distance between disruption awareness and coordinated response. The related Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map addresses the broader market for systems designed to improve the quality, speed, and operationalization of decisions.

This suggests a different way to measure AI value. Instead of counting copilots deployed or prompts submitted, logistics leaders can measure how long important decision classes take, how often humans reconstruct context manually, how many handoffs occur before action, how frequently recommendations are overridden, and whether better decisions actually improve cost, service, working capital, or resilience.

Decision latency is not merely an IT metric. In a constrained network it can become a capacity variable. A warehouse dock that waits for a decision is still occupied. A load that waits for re-tendering consumes time against service. Inventory that waits for disposition ties up capital and space. Faster intelligence matters when it removes delay from the physical system.

Autonomy Should Expand by Decision Class, Not by Ambition

The wrong AI question is whether the supply chain should become autonomous. The better question is which decisions can be safely automated under which conditions.

Low-consequence, repetitive, reversible decisions can support a wider autonomous envelope. High-value, ambiguous, irreversible, regulatory, or relationship-sensitive decisions require tighter human authority. Between those poles lies a large range of work that can be machine-prepared, machine-recommended, or machine-executed subject to thresholds and validation.

This is why architecture matters. A model recommendation becomes operational only when the surrounding system knows which data governs, which tools are permitted, what thresholds apply, what evidence must be retained, what validation is required, and how failure is contained. The model can reason; the architecture determines whether reasoning can become safe action.

Digital twins strengthen this loop. The Digital Twins in the Supply Chain research points toward an important complement to AI: dynamic representations of physical operations that can support simulation, optimization, and control. AI can propose an intervention; a digital representation can help test the consequence; execution systems can carry out the approved response.

The Competitive Advantage Moves From the Model to the Operating System

Model capability will continue to improve and diffuse. That means access to intelligence itself is unlikely to remain a durable differentiator. Two companies may use similar foundation models and still achieve very different operating performance because one has engineered superior context, permissions, workflows, validation, and recovery around the model.

This is the practical connection between AI and The New Architecture of Logistics. Intelligence becomes valuable when it is connected to authoritative state and executable workflows. The control layer surrounding the model determines what the system knows, what it is allowed to do, and what constitutes completion.

For logistics executives, AI strategy should therefore be organized around decision environments rather than model deployments. Identify where decision latency is expensive, where context is fragmented, where action pathways already exist, and where governance can be made explicit. Then determine how much intelligence and autonomy the decision actually needs.

The objective is not maximum autonomy. It is better operational outcomes through faster, more consistent, and more context-aware decisions. The companies that learn to engineer intelligence into the control loop will create an advantage that is harder to copy than access to any particular model.