The diamond industry was in mild shock when news came through of the latest US import requirements. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said it would be obliging companies to state the “country of mining” when importing diamonds from April 2025. This puts a burden on the trade to step up its traceability efforts.
The new rules emerged quietly in stages. On October 22, 2024, CBP gave 60 days’ notice about the plan and requested comments by December 23. Few in the industry even saw this. Then the federal agency published a Trade User Information Notice, labeled “Last updated: January 14, 2025.” It distributed this in a bulletin on January 23. Shipping company Malca-Amit sent a letter to customers about the update around a week ago. It seems that it was this letter that got the trade’s attention.
The details remain unclear. The directive does not mention carat sizes, though the US’s ban on Russian diamonds has applied to 0.50-carat and larger diamonds since September 1, 2024.
The Malca-Amit letter, as seen by Rapaport News, states that the change “would apply for all jewelry shipments containing diamonds and all loose diamonds [weighing 0.50 carats] and above,” but this “can be subject to change by CBP.” This size threshold is logical, since the purpose is to enforce the sanctions, but it is not confirmed.
Lack of detail
CBP also makes no mention of evidence requirements. Industry members who spoke with Rapaport News on Sunday believed that the policy of self-certification would continue, but with an increased possibility that authorities would request documentation. What constitutes reliable documentation is another matter. Is a Kimberley Process (KP) certificate good enough to prove the origin of the rough? Which technologies will be acceptable for connecting the rough to the polished? What about goods with mixed origin?
“This certainly puts the onus on importers to have evidence lest they want to be penalized for making false statements,” said Brad Brooks-Rubin, a partner at legal advisory firm Arktouros and a former senior adviser to the Office of Sanctions Coordination at the US State Department.
Confusingly, the October notice references “diamonds and diamond jewelry,” while the January document confirming the rules lists two categories: “diamond imports” and “imports of jewelry that exclude diamonds.” The status of finished diamond jewelry is not specified.
CBP and the State Department had not responded to requests for comment by press time.
The Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC), which provides legal guidance to the industry, has not yet written any public explanations of the new requirements, “because the documents as published are so unclear that we need answers to a number of questions before we can,” said Sara Yood, the organization’s CEO and general counsel, in an email to Rapaport News on Sunday. The organization is waiting for responses to those questions. CBP’s frequently asked questions (FAQs) don’t clarify much beyond technical points.
JVC filed a comment during CBP’s consultation period about the “country of mining origin definition not being accurate for the jewelry trade,” Yood added. This “seemingly was never addressed or published.”
The October request for comments defines “country of mining” as “where the diamonds were mined, extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part.”
“The way that terminology is used in the diamond trade is different than what customs seemingly intends to do here,” Yood continued. “My comments to them specifically addressed this issue, but again, their communications lack clarity and so we are seeking further guidance.”
Two coincidences?
In 2019, US President Donald Trump’s previous administration touted a plan to require full origin disclosure for all items in jewelry. This never materialized. That was well before the Russia-Ukraine war. The new update is unrelated to this; the fact that it came out days after Trump’s inauguration for his second term was a coincidence. The US authorities have, of course, been working on implementation of the Group of Seven (G7) import bans for a long time.
This is the latest in a chain of plans for enforcing the G7 sanctions that have met criticism and confusion. Much of the diamond industry shouted down the European Union proposal for a single inspection node in Antwerp, resulting in a process to establish verification points around the world. The idea of self-certification for shipments into the US has obvious enforcement problems.
In their current form, America’s new rules would appear to benefit De Beers and other companies with sophisticated provenance systems. It’s noteworthy that De Beers announced it would provide country-of-origin information for all rough above 1.25 carats — which produces polished of around 0.50 carats and larger — a day before CBP’s October notice. A De Beers spokesperson said this was indeed a coincidence, and the company was not aware the CBP notification was on its way.
The race to shore up diamond traceability has taken on a new speed. It’s likely only to accelerate.
Update, February 5, 2025: This article now contains a response from De Beers about the timing of its October announcement on country of origin.
Image: A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) worker inspecting containers of imported goods. (Glenn Fawcett/US Customs and Border Protection)