DHL To Suspend Global Shipments Over $800 To US Amid New Customs Rules
DHL Express, part of Germany's Deutsche Post, announced that it will stop shipping business-to-consumer (B2C) packages worth more than $800 to individuals in the United States, effective April 21.
New U.S. Customs Rules Trigger DHL's Pause on High-Value Shipments
This decision comes after new U.S. customs rules lowered the threshold for formal entry processing from $2,500 to $800, making the clearance process longer and more complicated.
The update was shared on DHL's website, though the exact date wasn't mentioned. However, website data showed the notice was created on Saturday. DHL said the new customs regulations are the reason for the pause in high-value B2C shipments to the U.S.
B2B Shipments to Continue as DHL Calls Move Temporary, Prepares for May 2 Changes
DHL said that business-to-business (B2B) shipments will continue but might experience delays. Shipments valued under $800—whether to businesses or individuals—are not affected by the new rules. The company described the move as temporary.
In a statement last week, DHL mentioned it would keep handling shipments from Hong Kong to the U.S. according to current customs rules. It also said it would help customers understand and adjust to more changes expected on May 2.
Hong Kong Post Halts U.S. Shipments as Tariff War Escalates
This update followed an announcement from Hong Kong Post, which said it had stopped sending goods by sea to the U.S. Hong Kong Post accused the U.S. of "bullying" after American officials removed tariff-free trade benefits for packages coming from China and Hong Kong.
Starting April 27, it will also suspend airmail containing goods bound for the U.S. Tensions between the U.S. and China are growing, with the U.S. imposing new tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese and Hong Kong goods, and China responding with 125% import taxes on U.S. products.
From May 2, the U.S. will also end its "de minimis" rule for China and Hong Kong, which allowed packages under $800 to enter tariff-free. These shipments will now face a 90% tariff or a flat fee of $75.
From Domestic Ambitions to Focused International Shipping
DHL Express handles international shipping in and out of the U.S. but does not offer regular domestic delivery services within the U.S. The company tried to enter the U.S. domestic parcel delivery market to compete with FedEx and UPS but struggled due to high competition and losses.
In 2008, it announced it would shut down its U.S. domestic operations and focus only on international shipments to and from the U.S.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
18 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Elon Musk Asks If It's Time for New Political Party Amid Feud With Donald Trump
Elon Musk has once again stirred political debate in the United States, this time by hinting at the creation of a new political party. The billionaire's move comes amid an escalating public feud with US President Donald Trump, raising questions about Musk's political ambitions and his influence over the American right. Elon Musk Posts Viral Poll on X On Friday, 6 June 2025, Musk posted a poll on his official X account asking: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 The post quickly went viral, attracting over 89.4 million views and more than 5.6 million votes. At the time of writing, around 80.4% of respondents agreed that the United States needs a new party to represent the political centre, while 19.6% opposed the idea. Though the post did not mention Trump directly, the timing of the poll coincides with rising tensions between the Tesla boss and the US President. From Allies to Rivals: The Musk–Trump Breakdown Musk and Trump once maintained a close relationship, especially during Trump's campaign for a second term. Upon returning to the White House, Trump appointed Musk as a special government employee in a department ironically named the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. But the relationship has since soured. On Wednesday, 4 June, Musk was dismissed from his advisory role following repeated public criticisms of Trump's legislative agenda. In response, Musk took to X, claiming that Trump would not have won the election without his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate,' Musk wrote. Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 Trump, speaking to media, appeared to accept that the relationship had collapsed. 'Elon and I had a great relationship,' Trump said via NDTV. 'I don't know if we will anymore. I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot,' he added. Is Elon Musk Running for President? Despite the speculation, Musk has made no official statement about running for office. His recent poll and political commentary have reignited public interest, but the billionaire is legally ineligible to run for president. US law requires that presidential candidates be natural-born citizens. Musk, who was born in South Africa and became a US citizen in 2002, does not meet this requirement. However, this hasn't stopped his name from circulating in political circles. In 2024, several Democratic lawmakers labelled Musk the 'de facto' leader of the Republican Party, highlighting his growing influence over American politics and policy. What's Next for Musk in US Politics? Whether or not Musk intends to form a new party, his latest post signals a push to redefine political discourse. His call to represent the 'middle 80 percent' taps into widespread frustration with the polarised state of US politics. While a presidential bid remains off the table, Musk's political influence—fueled by his online reach, business empire, and media presence—continues to grow. With the 2028 election on the horizon, both Republicans and Democrats are likely to keep a close eye on his next move. Originally published on IBTimes UK
Int'l Business Times
a day ago
- Int'l Business Times
The Risks of Foreign Investment in U.S. Life Sciences Companies — Why Founders Should Take Heed
In recent years, Chinese investment in U.S. and global biotech and medtech has increased significantly. These partnerships can serve as strategic footholds, raising complex questions around security, sovereignty, and long-term strategy. Consider Grand Pharmaceutical Group, also known as Yuanda Pharmaceutical and Grand Pharma, which jointly acquired Australian firm Sirtex Medical, forged a nuclear medicine collaboration with Sirtex Medical U.S., and took an 87.5% stake in BlackSwan Vascular, a U.S.-based developer of vascular embolization technologies. On the surface, Grand Pharma looks like a modern success story. Hu Kaijun, a Chinese billionaire, holds a majority stake in Grand Pharma, positioning him as a key figure in the company's global expansion in the life sciences sector. Under his leadership, Grand Pharma has diversified its portfolio through strategic acquisitions and collaborations, enhancing its presence in the international market. But for U.S. life sciences stakeholders, don't be misled: Grand Pharma's rise isn't just a story of business savvy—it's a case study in how state-backed capital can reshape a company. And for founders, it's a reminder that funding sources can carry strategic baggage. Grand Pharma's aggressive expansion may reflect a broader trend of Chinese firms investing in advanced markets to access Western R&D and expand China's presence more deeply in the future of global biomedical innovation—a trend that raises serious concerns for U.S. interests. From State-Owned Roots to Global Reach Through strategic investments and collaborations, Kaijun and Grand Pharma continue to expand their footprint, resulting in the transfer of cutting-edge medical technologies from European and U.S. startups to China. Behind Grand Pharma's rapid rise lies a more complex history—one that raises questions about influence, oversight, and strategic intent. Before Grand Pharma was a global healthcare investor, it was a modest state-owned enterprise (SOE) in China under the purview of the Poverty Alleviation Office. Its mission: deliver pharmaceutical products as a public good, not a profit engine. But in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that began to change. A 2013 investigation by China Finance (CNFINA) suggested that Kaijun played a significant role in transforming the SOE into China Grand Enterprises through a series of complex transactions that have raised questions about corporate governance and asset valuation. One notable transaction highlighted in the CNFINA report involves Yanhuang Real Estate, a private firm not previously affiliated with the company. The firm purchased 50% of China Grand Enterprises from two state-owned shareholders for 50 million yuan. This transaction was justified using China Grand's initial registered capital of 100 million yuan. However, estimates based on the net assets held by China Grand at the time suggested that those shares were worth at least 145 million yuan, indicating a potential undervaluation of approximately 95 million yuan. The CNFINA report details that two additional state-owned entities transferred their 50% stake to four private investment firms, including Beijing Taihua Yongchang Investment and Beijing Dongfang Weichuang, for similarly underpriced amounts based on outdated registered capital. CNFINA's analysis estimated the value of these two transfers combined to have resulted in a total undervaluation of over 218 million yuan. This suspicious restructuring is significant because it offers a window into how power and capital were initially consolidated, and under what terms. Transactions that undervalue assets and move them out of public hands raise fundamental concerns about transparency, governance, and intent. When such origins lead to foreign acquisitions in sensitive sectors like biotechnology, it becomes even more important to scrutinize the business culture and strategic motivations behind the capital. In short, where the wealth comes from and how it was made offer important clues into how business leaders operate their companies. The Fine Print of Chinese Capital For U.S. life sciences startups, the lesson is clear: capital isn't neutral. The wrong investor can bring not just regulatory headaches but long-term strategic consequences. A growing list of cases tells a cautionary tale. Sirtex Medical When Grand Pharma and CDH Investments outbid Varian by a reported 20% to acquire Sirtex Medical, observers raised questions about the surprisingly high acquisition price. Through its subsidiary Chengdu Shetai, Grand Pharma has since leveraged Sirtex's platform to accelerate its development of nuclear medicine therapies. In cases of majority foreign ownership, especially by companies with potential state affiliations, it invites questions about data governance, manufacturing control, and regulatory visibility. More Lessons from BGI, WuXi, and Others Grand Pharma isn't the only example. Chinese biotech giants like BGI Group and WuXi AppTec have drawn attention in recent years over concerns related to data use, military ties, and participation in U.S. research networks. These cases underscore a growing sensitivity: capital flows from companies with strategic state interests may pose challenges in sensitive sectors like life sciences. A recent TechTimes article breaks down the core risks facing U.S. life sciences companies in the face of growing Chinese investment, from academic partnerships enabling access to sensitive research to financial ties that quietly shift control, and nefarious enterprises evading regulatory scrutiny. The piece argues that while the proposed BIOSECURE Act legislation is a step in the right direction, it lacks the enforcement teeth needed to truly safeguard American innovation in the life sciences sector. Ultimately, U.S. biotech and medtech startups must take proactive responsibility for who they partner with because policy alone won't protect what's not carefully guarded from the start. A Critical Reminder for Founders and CEOs: Capital Comes with Consequences U.S. life sciences startups face an increasingly complex landscape. Fast, global capital may seem like an obvious win, but it can introduce long-term complications. These include heightened regulatory oversight, potential deal restrictions, and reputational considerations. As geopolitical tensions evolve, particularly between the U.S. and China, biotech and medtech are emerging as points of scrutiny. In an interview on Chinese firms facing U.S. Commerce Department action related to AI, Gordon Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a specialist on U.S.-China relations, stated, "all Chinese companies are a threat." While his comment was made in the context of national security and advanced technologies, it reflects a broader concern among some policymakers and analysts: that Chinese firms, regardless of sector, may operate with implicit state alignment, especially when national strategic interests are involved. For biotech and medtech companies, choosing the right partner now depends as much on who they are as what they offer. For the foreseeable future, U.S. startups should approach foreign investment, especially from state-influenced entities, with caution and care. This isn't just about one company or one country. It's about building resilient innovation ecosystems that can withstand geopolitical shifts while preserving trust, competitiveness, and scientific integrity.
Int'l Business Times
2 days ago
- Int'l Business Times
Musk Endorses Claim That Trump 'Would Have Lost' Election Without Him: 'Such Ingratitude'
Following days of Elon Musk railing against President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," the billionaire CEO finally took a direct shot at Trump, marking a dramatic escalation in the growing rift between two of the most influential men in American politics. Musk reposted a screenshot of comments that were seemingly previously visible only to his subscribers on X. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," the screenshots read. The pink star signifying a "super follow," indicates that only the exclusive group of his paid subscribers could see the original tweets. "Such ingratitude," the tweet added. The repost featured commentary on a screenshot of Musk apparent semi-private comments. "He's not wrong," the X user wrote. Originally published on Latin Times
