A CBP Form 28 request for information is not a penalty, but a careless or late reply can turn it into one. What officers are testing, what evidence to send, and how to set the 30 day reply up properly.
Officers issue a Form 28 when something in an entry does not sit right: a classification that seems optimistic, a value that looks low against comparable imports, or an origin claim that needs support. The form names the entry, the concern, and the information wanted. It is an examination on paper, and the burden sits with the importer to show the entry was correct.
Treat the stated concern as the scope, but read it generously. If CBP questions classification, they are really asking how you know: the product's composition, function, and the analysis that led to the code. Replies that answer the literal question without showing the reasoning tend to draw a second round.
Thirty days passes quickly when evidence lives with an overseas supplier. Start the document hunt on day one: purchase orders, commercial invoices, payment records, spec sheets, photos, and any rulings or prior classification work. If a piece genuinely cannot arrive in time, request an extension before the deadline, in writing, with a reason. Extensions asked for early are routine. Silence followed by a late reply is not.
Assign one owner for the response. Brokers can file and advise, but the importer of record owns the facts. The reply should arrive as one organized packet, indexed to the questions asked, rather than a drip of attachments across two weeks that an officer has to assemble themselves.
Structure the packet so the officer can verify without detective work: a short cover explanation, then the evidence in the order the form requests it. For classification, show the product as it was imported, with composition and function documented. For value, connect the invoice price to proof of payment and explain any difference, freight, discounts, or assists, before CBP asks.
Answer only with what you can support. Guessing at a supplier's process or overstating certainty creates a record you will live with in any later audit. Where the entry was simply wrong, saying so, correcting it, and showing the fix across other affected entries often ends better than defending an indefensible position.
If CBP is not satisfied, the next step is a CF29 notice of action proposing to change the classification, value, or rate, and to bill the difference. At that point the dispute is formal, with protest rights and deadlines that matter. Patterns matter too: the same error across many entries can expand a single-entry question into a review of your whole import history.
That escalation risk is why a CF28 deserves senior attention even when the duty at stake on one entry is small. The real exposure is rarely the entry named on the form. It is every other entry filed the same way, plus the credibility you carry into the next interaction with the port.
Use the CF28 as a free audit prompt. Whatever CBP questioned on one entry, check everywhere else it could apply: the same SKU, the same supplier, the same valuation method. Fixing a systematic issue quietly and completely, before a second form arrives, is the cheapest compliance work you will ever do.
Then record what you learned where future entries are made: updated classification notes, supplier document requirements, and valuation instructions to your broker. A CF28 that changes your standard paperwork has done you a favor. One that changes nothing guarantees a sequel.
No. It is a request for information about a specific entry. It becomes financially serious only if the reply is late, incomplete, or shows the entry was wrong, which can lead to a CF29 notice of action and additional duty.
Generally 30 days from the date on the form. If evidence, especially from overseas suppliers, cannot arrive in time, request an extension in writing before the deadline and explain why.
Both, with clear roles. Your broker knows the filing mechanics, but you own the product and payment facts. Review the full packet before it goes, because the importer of record is answerable for it.
Say so, correct it, and check whether the same error touches other entries. Voluntary, documented correction usually fares far better than defending a position the evidence cannot support.