Guadalajara, MexicoUse Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Trade Council
June 2026: Making the cost visible before it lands
Dear members,
June brought our work back to a practical question: when a rule, tariff or supplier term changes, can a small trader understand the cost and prepare before it arrives? That is the question behind TR-001, our Small Importer Standard. It is not a request to exempt small businesses from every obligation. It is a request for rules that are understandable, proportionate and possible to plan for.
This month, the Assembly’s consultation on the draft Platform Fairness Standard opened on 2 June. That is a separate council’s work, but it matters to all of us: it is an opportunity to see the process in motion, from evidence and a draft to public comment and a decision. On 23 June, the Cashflow Council’s CF-001 passed its pattern test. And on 27 June, MSME Day gave us a moment to recognize the scale of the businesses represented here—not as a slogan, but as a reminder that rules designed around the largest firms can leave many others carrying the work of interpretation.
For Trade Council members, the specific public step this month was our 24 June letter to the UK Department for Business and Trade about the import/export exemption in the Late Payments Bill. The Bill’s exemption for import and export contracts is important to our evidence because cross-border trade already involves costs and timing that small firms cannot always control. We have asked decision-makers to consider how those arrangements affect smaller traders. The letter is a request, not a result: as of today, we have no reply to report.
What the numbers say
As of 27 June, Reseated had 1,000 members in 49 countries and had received 2,756 reports from 50 countries. The Trade Council includes 117 members in 41 countries and has received 140 reports from 36 countries. The median amount at stake in Trade reports is approximately US$4,181. That is not an abstract compliance cost for a small firm. It can represent money tied up while an owner tries to decide whether to proceed, renegotiate or absorb a change.
Of the 140 Trade reports, 96 concern tariffs and 44 concern supplier terms. Sixty-six Trade reports came in during the last 30 days. The largest share of reporting members run teams of two to nine people (49%); a further 33% work alone. Fourteen per cent have teams of 10 to 49, and 4% have teams of 50 to 249. These figures describe the people doing the work: in many cases, there is no separate customs department, legal team or specialist available to translate a changing requirement into a landed cost.
Our evidence is not a claim that every small trader faces the same problem. The reports come from different countries and circumstances. But they give us a basis to ask whether the pattern is recurring, whether it is consistent, how widely it spreads, and whether it is corroborated. That five-part test is how we distinguish a difficult individual experience from a problem that may warrant a shared fix.
A composite from the reports
To make the pattern concrete without exposing any member, consider this composite drawn from the kinds of situations reported to the Council. A small importer has agreed a price with a supplier and is arranging a shipment. Before the goods arrive, the importer needs to establish what tariff and other border costs will apply. The information is spread across rule notices, product classifications and messages from intermediaries. A forwarder can quote a transport price, but the final landed cost is still unclear. The owner must decide whether to confirm the order, revise the customer price or risk paying more than expected.
It illustrates the recurring practical issue in the evidence: uncertainty is itself a cost. A clear threshold, plain-language guidance and time to adjust can help a small trader make a decision before the obligation becomes a surprise. So can a forwarder’s transparent breakdown of the expected landed cost, including what is known, what may change and why.
What we learned
First, the amount at stake is often significant in relation to a small firm’s capacity, even when it is modest by the standards of a large importer. Second, tariffs are the larger category in our current Trade evidence, but supplier terms are not a side issue: nearly one-third of the reports concern them. Third, the same change can create very different burdens depending on a firm’s size, staffing and access to reliable guidance. That is why TR-001 asks for size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance and phase-in periods whenever new trade rules or tariffs apply, alongside landed-cost transparency from forwarders.
We also have a useful case to study, not a rule to copy without thought. The EU’s CBAM simplification uses a 50-tonne annual mass threshold from 1 January 2026. The European Parliament says the threshold removes around 90% of importers, mostly SMEs, while keeping around 99% of emissions in scope. The lesson for us is that a threshold can reduce the number of small operators facing administrative requirements while preserving the purpose of a policy. The details matter, and one model will not fit every trade rule. But the design question is worth asking whenever a new obligation is proposed.
More broadly, the UN estimates that MSMEs account for about 90% of businesses, 60–70% of employment and around half of global GDP. The ILO estimates that they provide about 70% of employment worldwide and that around 80% operate in the informal economy. These are global estimates, not a description of every country or member. They are a reminder that accessible guidance and workable compliance are part of how rules reach the real economy.
What comes next
The Platform Fairness Standard consultation remains open through 2 July. Its process is relevant to our own work: read the draft, make comments specific, and explain what would change in practice. In July, the Assembly expects a revised Platform draft and a Q2 report. For the Trade Council, we will continue gathering evidence on landed costs and supplier terms, test the proposed fix against the full five-part pattern, and use member reports to keep the standard grounded in operational realities. The next scheduled Trade Council milestone in the shared calendar is the draft of CF-001 on 21 July; TR-001 remains in evidence and drafting work, and I will not assign it a date that has not been set.
Thank you for sending reports that include the detail we need: where uncertainty appeared, when it became difficult to act, and what the consequences were. Thank you, too, to Ana in Guadalajara, Luis in Monterrey, Priya in Ahmedabad and Sam in Kingston for contributing time and care to this month’s Trade Council conversations. A name and city are enough here; members do not need to disclose their businesses to be heard.
Our task is to turn repeated, specific experiences into a proposal that can be understood and acted on. We will keep doing that carefully, and we will tell you plainly what the evidence supports—and what it does not.
With thanks,
Karina Luna CarballoChair, Trade CouncilGuadalajara, Mexico