19 C.F.R. § 103.23

Factors in determining whether to disclose information pursuant to a demand

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General considerations. In authorizing disclosures pursuant to a proper demand for CBP information, one which complies with the provisions of § 103.22(c), the Chief Counsel should consider the following factors:

(1) Whether the disclosure would be appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege;

(2) Whether the disclosure would be appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose; and,

(3) Whether the requesting party has demonstrated that the information requested is:

(i) Relevant and material to the action pending, based on copies of the summons and complaint that are required to be attached to the subpoena duces tecum or other demand;

(ii) Genuinely necessary to the proceeding, i.e., a showing of substantial need has been made;

(iii) Unavailable from other sources; and,

(iv) Reasonable in its scope, i.e., the documents, information, or testimony sought are described with particularity.

(4) Whether consultation with the originating component requires that the Chief Counsel make a separate determination as to the disclosure of the information requested.

(b) Circumstances where disclosure will not be made. Among the demands in response to which disclosure will not be authorized by the Chief Counsel are those demands with respect to which any of the following factors exist:

(1) Disclosure would violate a treaty, statute (such as the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905, or the income tax laws, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 7213), or a rule of procedure, such as the grand jury secrecy rule, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. rule 6(e) (18 U.S.C.App.);

(2) Disclosure would violate a specific regulation;

(3) Disclosure would reveal classified or confidential information;

(4) Disclosure would reveal a confidential source or informant;

(5) Disclosure would reveal investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, interfere with enforcement proceedings, or disclose investigative techniques and procedures;

(6) Disclosure would improperly reveal confidential commercial information without the owner's consent (e.g., entry information);

(7) Disclosure relates to documents which were produced by another agency or entity;

(8) Disclosure would unduly interfere with the orderly conduct of CBP business;

(9) CBP has no interest, records, or other official information regarding the matter in which disclosure is sought;

(10) There is a failure to make proper service upon the United States; or

(11) There is a failure to comply with federal, state, or local rules of discovery.

[61 FR 19838, May 3, 1996, as amended at 78 FR 70856, Nov. 27, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: L1 Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (S.D. Cal. 2020).
L1 Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 8× “48 (a); 19 C.F.R. § 103.23 (a). For example, the CPB 15 considers the following factors: 16 17 (1) Whether the disclosure would be appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege; 18 19 (2) Whether the disclosure would be appropriate under the rules of…”
Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. DE C.V. v. Polymetrix AG (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 7× “) Plaintiffs stated that their request was consistent with 19 C.F.R. § 103.23 , which defines the “[f]actors in determining whether to disclose information pursuant to a demand.”
Anderson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 190 F.R.D. 370 (D.V.I. 1999). “See 19 C.F.R. 103.23(a), (b). For the reasons stated, Customs objects to your requests for production of the specified documents.”
Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Co., Inc. (D.S.D. 2025). · cites it 5× “Omega submitted the requested materials on May 8, 2024, provided additional information regarding the “general considerations” CBP would have to evaluate under 19 C.F.R. §103.23 to determine whether to disclose documents, and extended the return date of the subpoena until May…”
Coates v. Ford Motor Co. Re: 3:2018-cv-35 (St. Thomas Original case No.) (D.V.I. 2023). · cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. § 103.23 (a). Disclosure will not be made where it would violate any treaty, statute, or other law or regulation, it would reveal classified or confidential material, it would “reveal investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, interfere with…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 103.23(a) — 1 case
Anderson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 190 F.R.D. 370 (D.V.I. 1999). “See 19 C.F.R. 103.23(a), (b). For the reasons stated, Customs objects to your requests for production of the specified documents.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.