The extension of the catalogue of goods subject to monitoring under the SENT system represents a real operational change for the apparel and footwear industry. As of 17 March 2026, SENT obligations will require not only adjustments in logistics processes, but also preparation of the IT layer: data, integrations, validations, and transport monitoring.

In practice, most problems arise not at the level of “do we know what needs to be done?” but rather “are our systems able to do this consistently and automatically?”.

The 5 most common mistakes when implementing SENT:

1) Incorrect logic for transport qualification

Most often, the decision whether a transport is subject to SENT is made without a standardized process and without automation. In practice, it relies on manual assessment (often based on incomplete premises), which results in some transports not being reported at all, while others are reported to SENT “just in case,” generating unnecessary costs and operational chaos.

2) Incomplete or inconsistent source data

Implementation reveals data gaps: entity identifiers, locations, product parameters, means of transport data, and relationships between sender–carrier–recipient. If users have to fill in fields manually, the risk of errors increases, as well as inconsistencies between documents and the SENT notification.

3) Lack of handling and monitoring of the transport process (updates and changes during execution)

A SENT notification does not end with “create notification.” In the real world, vehicles, drivers, routes, dates, or unloading locations change. If the tool does not support updates in a process-driven way, the organization is left with a non-compliant notification and exposed to the risk of sanctions.

4) Geolocation treated as an add-on rather than a critical component

Even correctly prepared notifications will not ensure a successful implementation if the geolocation component is incomplete: lack of a standard (application vs. device), no route testing, no alerts for data transmission interruptions, and no procedures for handling failures.

5) Incomplete integration: lack of resilience, audit, and monitoring

The most common gaps include: no queues and retry mechanisms, no idempotency (duplicates), no error-handling path (dead-letter), no status dashboards for notifications, and no audit trail of “who changed what and when.” Added to this is the lack of regression testing before new groups of goods go live.

The implementation of SENT for new product categories should be treated as an integration and process project, not as “an additional form.” In this approach, a key role is played by a tool that consolidates rules, data, integrations, and monitoring into a single, coherent workflow.

PentaSENT can serve as such an operational layer for SENT, covering, among others:

• A qualification rules engine with the ability to maintain regulatory changes without “manual workarounds.”

• A consistent SENT data model and pre-submission validations (minimizing manual input and errors).

• Process-driven transport handling: creation, updates, corrections, and closure – with a full audit trail.

• Standardized geolocation with continuity monitoring and alerting for risk events.

• An enterprise-class integration layer.

The key business outcome: reduction of manual activities, process predictability, and the ability to detect issues before they turn into inspections or delivery delays.

The new SENT obligations for apparel and footwear effective from 17 March 2026 require preparation not only on the compliance side, but above all in IT and operational processes. The most common issues stem from incorrect qualification, data gaps, lack of update handling, incomplete geolocation, and weak integration and monitoring. A process-based, tool-supported approach – such as PentaSENT – makes it possible to implement SENT as a repeatable, auditable, and automated process rather than a collection of manual, high-risk activities.

Author: Monika Jurkowska, Deputy Director for Business Development at Pentacomp