Insights

Just two days after the tariffs on all Mexican and Canadian products became effective, on March 6, President Trump announced amendments to the tariffs against Mexico and Canada “to minimize disruption to the United States automotive industry and automotive workers.” Specifically, the amendments provide that the tariffs would not apply to goods that qualify for preferential treatment under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The amendments also lowered the duty rate for non-qualifying imports of potash from Canada and Mexico. (For background on the tariffs and retaliation, see our earlier article, U.S. Implements New Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China.)

On February 13, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum on “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs” (the “Reciprocal Tariffs Memorandum”), introducing the “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” to determine “the equivalent of a reciprocal tariff with respect to each foreign trading partner.” The reciprocal tariffs may be implemented as soon as April 2025.[1]

On February 10, 2025, the Trump administration published a proclamation announcing reinstatement of the 25% tariff on all steel imports (“Steel Proclamation”). That same day, President Trump also issued a proclamation announcing the reinstatement and increase of tariffs on aluminum imports to 25% (“Aluminum Proclamation”). The tariffs will be imposed on steel and aluminum articles imported from all countries, and the Proclamations announced tariffs on certain steel and aluminum product derivatives. The reinstated tariffs become effective on March 12, 2025.

President Donald Trump has agreed to delay the implementation of tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada for 30 days, following negotiations with the leaders of both countries. For more information about the threatened tariffs, see yesterday’s trade alert, U.S. Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada and China Beginning February 4; Mexican President Announces One Month Implementation Delay (published before the announcement of the delay of tariffs on Canada). The decision to delay implementation comes after Mexico and Canada committed to enhance border security and combat the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

In this continued era of protectionist and mercantilist trade policies arising from the United States, there are strategies that can be carefully evaluated and pursued to maximize Customs duty savings when importing. This article briefly summarizes a few strategies. Importantly, all duty saving strategies are heavily scrutinized by the government and should be carefully evaluated before implementation. 

On December 23, 2024, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) launched an investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to targeting of the semiconductor industry for dominance. The investigation was launched under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

On November 25, 2024, President-elect Donald Trump provided some additional clarity on his immediate tariff plans in a post on Truth Social. Specifically, Trump announced his intent to sign an Executive Order on his first day in office to impose a 25% tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada. According to the post, the tariff will remain in effect for an indefinite period tied to fentanyl smuggling and illegal immigration. In a separate post, President-elect Trump also announced his intention to add a 10% tariff “above any additional tariffs” on all Chinese-origin products. Factoring in current 25% Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, this means that some Chinese products will be subject to a 35% tariff in addition to their normal duty rate. Trump similarly tied this tariff hike to China’s role in the fentanyl crisis.

A second Donald Trump presidency ushers in a moment in international trade without precedent…other than the first Trump presidency. It is often difficult to predict how a new administration will act, but in this case, the “new” president has previously shown that he does not always conform to the typical expectations of the office, particularly with respect to international trade. Below we outline a few initial impressions on the potential impacts the Trump presidency will have on global relationships and discuss how you can prepare for the new administration.

The practice of determining an item’s country of origin (“COO”) and utilizing the principal of “substantial transformation” to help make this determination is likely a familiar concept for many U.S. importers in the context of compliance with U.S. Customs regulations. However, the principal of substantial transformation is also recognized by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) as being applicable in the somewhat unique context of U.S.

Just in time for Spooky Season, the Biden Administration announced executive actions related to the much used – and much lamented, depending on who you ask – de minimis exemption, which allows shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the United States duty-free and with reduced information requirements. Among other changes, the executive actions propose to remove de minimis treatment for merchandise subject to Section 301 Chinese-origin goods.

This article will provide an overview of the global legal landscape for forced labor due diligence, highlight jurisdictions with forced labor due diligence and reporting requirements, and examine the kinds of steps companies should be taking to address forced labor risks in their supply chains and comply with relevant laws.

On May 22, 2024, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced the publication of a Federal Register Notice (“the FRN”) setting forth additional and increased Section 301 tariffs for specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (“HTSUS”) subheadings. In addition, the FRN provides details on products subject to potential exclusions from the tariffs and establishes a period for interested parties to provide comments on the tariff modifications and potential exclusions.

On May 14, 2024, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced the publication of its long-awaited report on the Four-Year Review of Actions Taken in the Section 301 Investigation: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation (“the Report”). Considering the reported efficacy of the tariffs as strategic measures to counteract adverse Chinese policies and practices, and findings that unfair practices persist, President Biden and the USTR are now set to take further action related to Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods.

March 2024 was a busy month for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”) with respect to the Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”) regulations related to the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties (“AD/CVD”). On March 11, CBP made a new dashboard available, which allows the public to review statistics related to EAPA cases that have made it to the “interim measures” or “determination of evasion” stages of investigations. Separately, on March 18, CBP published a final rule, which adopts amendments to the initial EAPA regulations originally published as an interim final rule on August 22, 2016.

On April 17, 2024, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) initiated an investigation pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) regarding China’s acts, policies, and practices to dominate the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sector. The investigation was initiated following the filing of a petition (“Petition”) by several domestic labor unions (“Petitioners”) representing these industries. The USTR encourages interested parties to submit comments on any issue covered by the investigation. Comments are due by May 22, 2024.

On March 26, 2024, the Eastman Chemical Company (“Petitioner”) submitted a petition (“Petition”) to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) for the imposition of antidumping duties (“ADD”) on dioctyl terephthalate (“DOTP”) from Malaysia, Poland, Taiwan, and Turkey. DOTP is a plasticizer used in a variety of applications, including flooring, PVC compounds, wall coverings, toys, and many others. The Petition asserts that imports of DOTP from the specified countries are being “dumped” (i.e., sold for less than fair value) in the United States and injuring U.S. domestic industry. To offset the alleged dumping, Petitioner requests that the U.S. impose ADD on products within the scope of the Petition.

Ending a legal saga that began in 2013 and involved an appeal to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on March 11 announced that Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) agreed to pay $365 million to resolve penalties related to the customs misclassification and undervaluation of approximately 162,833 cargo vans imported into the United States. DOJ alleged that from April 2009 to August 2013 Ford engaged in a scheme whereby the company imported Transit Connect vans from Turkey with a “sham” rear seat to make these vans appear to be passenger vehicles rather than cargo vehicles. Per the DOJ press release, the rear seats “were never intended to be, and never were, used to carry passengers.”

On February 7, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that settlements and judgements under the False Claims Act (FCA) exceeded $2 billion for the 2022 fiscal year. The 2022 fiscal year also had the second-highest number of settlements and judgments for any given year in the history of the act.

Ensuring compliance with U.S. export controls, import regulations, and economic sanctions is common practice for companies that engage in international trade. These companies often have internal compliance policies and due diligence practices that help to monitor compliance for everyday operations. In addition, companies undergoing structural, or ownership changes often must conduct trade-related due diligence to assess compliance risks associated with a relevant target company. 

On December 26, 2023, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced the extension to May 31, 2024, of all current exclusions from Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods. The extended exclusions include 77 COVID-related exclusions and 352 previously reinstated exclusions. 

Regular readers of our newsletter, and those familiar with U.S. import and export regulations, know that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”) generally enforces the U.S. import regulations, while multiple executive government agencies administer regulations related to the export of goods.

In July 2019, CBP updated its Mitigation Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), specifically the section related to forfeiture remission for export seizures. [1]

Many importers have experienced at one time or another that horrible, stomach-turning feeling that comes with the realization that merchandise they have been importing has been entered under the wrong HTS code, with the incorrect value, or with the incorrect country of origin. These and similar errors constitute violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1592, and upon such discovery, the importer must ask, “Should I submit a Prior Disclosure to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)?” The answer to that question will depend on a variety of factors, which will be discussed in this article.

In 2022, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”) processed $3.35 trillion in imports, issued 2,121 penalties, and collected $19.3 million from penalties and liquidated damages. [1] Section 1592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the primary customs penalty provision and is the enforcement tool used by CBP to ensure compliance with Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) classification, valuation, and other entry requirements. 

In 2016, the United States implemented legislation revising 19 U.S.C. § 1321 (“Section 321”) and thereby increasing the de minimis amount for imports into the United States from $200 to $800, meaning an importer is not required to pay duties if the merchandise has a fair market retail value at or below $800. In 2018, the U.S. began imposing a 25% tariff on most goods from China. The convergence of these two issues – the ability to import duty-free under $800 and the steep duties applicable to Chinese goods – led many vendors of Chinese merchandise to take advantage of Section 321 de minimis treatment for certain imports.

Importing merchandise into the United States can be a tricky process for even magical folk. There are a variety laws and regulations enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”), and violations can lead to significant consequences including monetary penalties. In a more practical sense, lack of compliance with the Customs regulations can cause increased regulatory scrutiny, delay the release of merchandise by CBP, and affect an importer’s ability to meet internal deadlines or other obligations related to the imported merchandise. Quite the impediment for a man whose distribution business is conducted over the course of one night!

Receiving an administrative subpoena, summons, or other request for information from a federal U.S. agency can be surprising, but it is not an uncommon scenario in the trade world. The main agencies in charge of administering and enforcing U.S. trade laws each have the power to compel the disclosure of certain information or documentation that may be related to an agency’s enforcement of import, export, or economic sanctions regulations.

On July 26, 2023, the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (“FLETF”), chaired by the Department of Homeland Security, issued updates to its Strategy to Prevent the Importation of Goods Mined, Produced, or Manufactured with Forced Labor in the People’s Republic of China (the “Strategy”)1 related to enforcement by U.S.

On October 17, 2023, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“Petitioner”) submitted a petition (“Petition”) to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) for the imposition of antidumping duties (“ADD”) on bus and truck tires from Thailand. 

any importers will discover at some point that products they import may be subject to anti-dumping duties (“ADD”) or countervailing duties (“CVD”). With Washington’s continued aggressive approach toward unfair trade practices by foreign competitors, particularly China, importers must prepare for additional ADD/CVD orders and enforcement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “CBP”). This article seeks to explain the options an importer has if it discovers that any of its products are potentially subject to ADD/CVD.

From tariffs on dairy and solar products to rules of origin for automobiles, the three parties to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) have disagreed on a variety of issues since the agreement came into force in 2020. This time, the subject of the dispute is corn, or more specifically, the measures taken by Mexico to ban the import of certain genetically engineered (“GE”) corn and other GE products.  

The United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued an Alert on April 17, 2023, warning U.S. persons about the possible evasion of the price cap imposed by the Department of Treasury on Russian oil.

On March 20, 2023, the U.S. Commerce Department announced that an agreement had been reached in the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) investigation on imports of white grape juice concentrate (WGJC) from Argentina,

On February 7, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that settlements and judgements under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) exceeded $2 billion for the 2022 fiscal year. The 2022 fiscal year also had the second-highest number of settlements and judgments for any given year in FCA history. 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is conducting a review of the China Section 301 tariffs that were put into place in 2018 under the Trump administration. 

On June 21, 2022 the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) went into effect. It is the latest – and perhaps strongest – tool in the belt of U.S. regulatory and enforcement agencies to combat forced labor. The UFLPA puts the onus on importers to ensure their supply chains and merchandise are free from forced labor. This article will discuss forced labor enforcement generally, the UFLPA, and what it means for importers and how they can comply with the new regulations.

 Today, June 21, 2002, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) comes into effect. It is the latest – and perhaps strongest – tool in the belt of U.S. regulatory and enforcement agencies to combat forced labor. The UFLPA puts the onus on importers to ensure their supply chains and merchandise are free from forced labor. This article will discuss forced labor enforcement generally, the UFLPA, and what it means for importers and how they can comply with the new regulations.

If your company has been negatively impacted by the Section 232 and Section 301 duties, you may now have another opportunity to voice your concerns in Washington. On May 5, 2022, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) published information regarding a fact-finding investigation into the economic impact of the Section 232 and 301 duties on U.S. industries.

On May 3, 2022, the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced a statutory two-phase review of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods. USTR also published a Federal Register Notice draft describing the process for filing requests for extension of the tariffs.

In recent years, the U.S. Government (“USG”) has taken numerous actions to target forced labor and other human rights violations, with a significant increase in 2020 and early 2021. These include the issuance of trade-related restrictions, such as import and export laws, economic sanctions, and civil monetary penalties,

On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Government published a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments on an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) regarding the determination of non-preferential origin for imports from Mexico and Canada: Non-Preferential Origin Determinations for Merchandise Imported from Canada or Mexico for Implementation of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada.

Emilio Arteaga is a Jr. Partner at Vazquez Tercero & Zepeda law firm in Mexico City. Torres Law and Vazquez Tercero & Zepeda are member law firms of Alliott Group Alliance and often collaborate on international trade corporate matters involving the United States and Mexico, including USMCA compliance issues.

On March 5, 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") issued a ruling that denied a protest from Dandong Huayang that clothing made at its Chinese factory was not produced by North Korean employees.

As January 20, 2021 approaches and the advent of a new president and presidency emerges, what can we expect from a Biden administration and its Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”) Transfer Pricing policy? What opportunities are available for global companies to manage and make retrospective inter-company Transfer Pricing adjustments? Different customs options and opportunities exist depending upon each companies’ analysis and needs.

Browse our export & trade guides below:

• Guide to Foreign Person “Deemed Export” Licenses
• ITAR Material Change and Registration Renewal Guide & Checklist
• Huawei Entity List Guide
• EEI Filings Guide
• Customs Valuation Are You Undervaluing Merchandise
• Controlled Item Marking Requirements
• Transaction Due Diligence
• Guide to Successor Liability and Trade Law in Mergers and Acquisitions
• Guide to Economic Sanctions
• Export Agency Visit Summary Tracking Sheet
• Export Jurisdiction And Classification - Quick Reference Guide
• Voluntary Self-Disclosure Handbook
• US Export Controls and Sanctions Overview
• Guide to Complying with U.S. Export Control and Immigration  Laws
• Fundamental Elements of Effective Trade Compliance Programs
• Export Classification Quick reference
• Customs Guide For General Counsel, C-Executives, And Accounting Firms
• Guide To The Generalized System Of Preferences
• Red Flags in Transaction Due Diligence
• ADD/CVD Scope Rulings

If you have not noticed, 2020 is a U.S. presidential election year. If you missed that fact, you may also not realize that the United States is in the midst of a years-long trade war with China. The convergence of these two circumstances has caught the attention of the business community, particularly as relates to trade policy.

On April 18, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order providing authority to the Secretary of the Treasury, under 19 U.S.C. § 1318, to extend the deadline for payments of certain estimated duties, taxes, and fees for importers suffering significant financial hardship during the national emergency created by the COVID-19 novel coronavirus pandemic.

Very few words evoke feelings of fear and loathing quite like the word “audit.” But Compliance professionals understand that auditing internal trade compliance processes is a necessary method of maintaining healthy trade controls and avoiding costly penalties.

Since President Trump took office in January of 2017, he has shown his desire to follow through with trade policies that were a central part of his campaign. 

On August 14, 2019, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring customs brokers to verify the identity of their importer clients, in particular non-resident importers.

Current rules and regulations only require customs brokers to obtain very minimal details regarding importers to which they provide services.

The USTR is still accepting exclusion requests for products subject to the trade action on $200 Billion of Chinese goods, also known as “List 3” products

The North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) has been in effect since January 1, 1994, and more than two decades later, on May 18, 2017, the United States Trade Representative (“Trade Representative”), Robert Lighthizer, notified Congress of the United States' intention to renegotiate NAFTA. The United States commenced renegotiations with Canada and Mexico on August 16, 2017.

On July 6, 2018, the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") announced the procedures for filing and obtaining product exclusions from the recently announced Section 301 tariffs on the imports of $34 billion worth of Chinese goods. Exclusion requests are due by October 9, 2018.

Since the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (“TFTEA”) was signed into law in February 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has increased enforcement of U.S. import laws and regulations. Increased enforcement and associated risks should drive an increased focus by importers on compliance with CBP regulations. However, there remains a knowledge gap among some importing companies and non-trade attorneys related to a few of the basics of import regulations. In this regard, businesses and corporate attorneys should familiarize themselves with the issues below in order to navigate the increasingly risky waters of customs compliance.

On June 15, 2018, the Trump Administration took the next step in escalating trade tensions with China by imposing additional 25% tariffs on imports of more than 800 products under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

From time to time importers may receive from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”) a CBP Form 28 (“CF 28”) Request for Information. The issuance of a CF 28 is a standard procedure used by Customs to gain more information about entered merchandise. Totally harmless, right? Not necessarily. As discussed below, it is important for importers, and customs brokers responding on behalf of importers, to take the issuance and response to a CF 28 seriously.

On March 19, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commcer ("DOC") published an interim final rule (“the Interim Final Rule”) listing the requirements for companies seeking product-based exclusions to the steel and aluminum tariffs previously announced by President Trump on March 8, 2018.

On March 8, 2018, President Trump announced his decision to implement tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. These tariffs go into effect on March 23, 2018,[1] 15 days after President Trump’s announcement.

On December 31, 2017 the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”) trade program expired after Congress failed to reauthorize the program.

In 2009, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) published guidelines that govern the enforcement and mitigation of civil penalties for companies and other entities that fail to comply with the Foreign Trade Regulations (“FTR”) in 15 C.F.R. § 30.[1]. While Section 30 includes a list of violations that trigger civil penalties, it also lists mitigating factors for violations.

On August 14, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued its first notification of final determination of antidumping duties (“ADD”) evasion pursuant to the Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”).

Two recent U.S. court decisions will increase corporate officers’ and compliance professionals’ risks for personal liability for Customs law violations. Specifically, the decisions relate to fraudulent, grossly negligent, or negligent activity under the Customs penalty statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1592.  

On June 29, 2017, in an effort to continue to transform the way U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) approaches trade through the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (“Centers”), CBP released a new trade process document that includes new responsibilities and procedures for importers, brokers, agents, or filers.

With the signing of two new executive orders, President Trump is taking the first steps in fulfilling two of his favorite campaign promises, both relating to trade: (1) no longer tolerating trade abuse that damages the American economy and (2) decreasing the national trade deficit.