HTS Classification

This article provides an overview of the most recent tariff updates affecting businesses operating within the semiconductor, pharmaceutical, and critical mineral industries. Below we outline recent tariff exclusions for semiconductor products and new investigations into certain semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and critical minerals which can lead to higher tariffs for these product groups. Industries affected by the newly launched investigations should consider filing a public comment.

On March 26, 2025, President Trump issued a Proclamation announcing the imposition of a 25% tariff on imported automobiles set to become effective on April 3, 2025, and certain automotive parts, set to become effective no later than May 3, 2025. These automotive tariffs will follow what the President has dubbed “Liberation Day” (i.e., April 2, 2025), the day new reciprocal and sectoral tariffs are planned to go into effect on a wide range of imports from various countries.[1] 

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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 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.

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

This article discusses how new regulations significantly change foreign investments in U.S. businesses and the temporary Pilot Program, which addresses specific risks related to U.S. critical technologies.

This article first appeared in the Newsletter of the International Law Section (www.ilstexas.org) of the State Bar of Texas, and is reproduced with the Section’s permission.

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.

Despite the perceived success of KORUS, under which exports of U.S. goods and services to South Korea were estimated at $63.8 billion in 2016,[1] on the morning of September 1, 2017, President Donald Trump reportedly informed his senior officials of his intent to withdraw from the agreement.[2] Although this announcement may be unsurprising to those following the administration’s renegotiation of NAFTA, the news sparked some controversy across industries that rely heavily on South Korean markets, such as the agricultural industry.

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.