LinkedInFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeEmailPhone

The U.S. Declined to Renew USMCA – What Importers Must Do Now

USMCA remains in force, but annual reviews create a new layer of origin compliance risk that importers can’t afford to ignore. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • USMCA did not end. On July 1, 2026, the U.S. declined to renew the agreement for a fresh 16-year term, moving it into annual reviews. The pact stays in force, potentially through 2036, unless a country formally exits with six months’ notice. 
  • Nothing changes at the port tomorrow. USMCA-qualifying goods still enter duty-free. Your certifications, rules-of-origin claims, and preference elections remain valid today. 
  • The real risk is enforcement, not policy. A decade of open renegotiation puts rules of origin, especially auto content and regional-value-content thresholds, into permanent play. Origin claims made under old assumptions become audit and penalty exposure. 
  • Act now on documentation, not headlines. Importers should stress-test USMCA certifications, tighten origin recordkeeping, and model exposure to Section 232 auto/steel/aluminum tariffs that already sit on top of the agreement. 

The Challenge: Compliance & Enforcement 

The news landed fast and loud: the United States declined to renew the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2026. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed the U.S. would forgo a fresh 16-year term in favor of annual reviews of the pact. Some coverage framed this as the end of North American free trade. It is not. 

Here is the […]

By |2026-07-02T07:30:23-04:00July 2, 2026|Import, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), USMCA|Comments Off on The U.S. Declined to Renew USMCA – What Importers Must Do Now
Read More

CAPE Phase II Is Live: Most IEEPA Duties Are Now Refund-Eligible — Here’s How to Claim Yours 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • As of June 29, 2026, CBP’s CAPE system reached Phase II — enhanced processing for reconciliation-flagged entries, making the large majority of IEEPA duties eligible for refund. 
  • Refunds are not automatic for every entry type. Eligibility, filing method, and ACH enrollment all matter — and finally, liquidated entries are treated differently depending on whether you filed a CIT lawsuit. 
  • The window rewards speed and documentation. Importers who reconcile their IEEPA-dutied entries now will recover capital sooner; those who wait risk falling into later, slower phases. 

Tariff Refunds – a Moving Target 

If your business paid duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), you have likely been watching a moving target: litigation over whether those duties were lawfully collected, a refund mechanism built in phases, and shifting guidance on which entries qualify and when. The result is paralysis — many importers know money may be owed back to them, but cannot tell whether, how, or when to claim it. 

That uncertainty has a real cost. Every month, a refund-eligible entry that sits unaddressed, working capital tied up at CBP rather than in your business. And because the refund framework is being rolled out in stages, the entries you can act on today are not the same as the ones you will be able to act on next month — sequencing matters. 

CAPE Phase II Now […]

By |2026-06-29T09:50:13-04:00June 29, 2026|ACE, Import, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on CAPE Phase II Is Live: Most IEEPA Duties Are Now Refund-Eligible — Here’s How to Claim Yours 
Read More

De Minimis, Codified: CBP Finalizes the Postal Suspension Rule — July 24 Comment Deadline

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • De minimis is not new news — the $800 duty-free exemption was already suspended for all countries on August 29, 2025. What’s new is CBP’s interim final rule codifying the postal piece and creating a formal postal informal entry process. 
  • Two key dates: the postal IFR takes effect July 24, 2026 (compliance by October 22, 2026), and public comments on the rulemaking are due July 24, 2026. 
  • If your business ships low-value parcels by mail, the entry mechanics are now being locked into regulation. The comment window is your one chance to shape them before they harden. 

De Minimis Is Over. Now CBP Is Writing the New Rules.

For years, the de minimis exemption was the quiet engine of e-commerce: shipments valued at or under $800 entered the United States free of duty and with minimal formality. That era already ended. As we covered in De Minimis No More: What It Means for Importers and Consumers, a July 30, 2025, Executive Order suspended duty-free de minimis treatment for all countries effective August 29, 2025, accelerating the repeal that the 2025 budget law had set for July 1, 2027. 

So the headline is not that de minimis is ending — it ended ten months ago. The development now is regulatory: CBP is codifying how low-value shipments, particularly through the international mail channel, must be […]

By |2026-06-29T09:44:34-04:00June 29, 2026|Import, Pre-compliance, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on De Minimis, Codified: CBP Finalizes the Postal Suspension Rule — July 24 Comment Deadline
Read More

CAPE Now Accepts Reconciliation-Flagged Entries — But File in the Wrong Order and You Forfeit the Refund

If you have entries flagged for reconciliation and a reconciliation deadline inside the next 30 days, the order in which you file has just become a decision that can cost you your IEEPA refund. Under CBP’s June 29, 2026, CAPE deployment, once you file the reconciliation entry (Type 09), the underlying entries are locked out of CAPE in this phase. File the recon first, and you have stripped your own entries of the consolidated IEEPA refund path — permanently, for now. The new functionality is genuinely good news. The trap is in the sequence. 

Key points:

  • New as of June 29, 2026: CAPE will accept entries flagged for reconciliation (Entry Types 01, 02, 06) even when no Type 09 reconciliation entry has been filed yet. 
  • The sequence that wins: File the CAPE Declaration FIRST. CAPE strips the IEEPA duties from the flagged entries, then you file the reconciliation. 
  • The sequence that loses: File the reconciliation entry first. The underlying entries are then ineligible for CAPE in this phase. 
  • Still not covered: Entries where the reconciliation entry is already on file — those wait for a future CAPE phase. 

Same eligibility limits as Phase 1 carry over: unliquidated entries and entries within 80 days of liquidation only. 

The Challenge: Reconciliation Was a Hole in Phase 1 

When CBP launched Phase 1 of the Consolidated Administration […]

By |2026-06-26T12:30:40-04:00June 26, 2026|ACE, Import, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off on CAPE Now Accepts Reconciliation-Flagged Entries — But File in the Wrong Order and You Forfeit the Refund
Read More

New Section 232 Action: What the June 2026 Aluminum, Steel & Copper Proclamation Means for Your Imports

Topline summary: On June 1, 2026, President Trump amended the Section 232 tariff framework for aluminum, steel, and copper. Importers of agricultural, industrial, and mobile equipment may qualify for temporarily reduced rates of 10–15%, while certain furniture parts, lithographic plates, and steel racks are newly dutiable for the first time. With a December 31, 2027, sunset on all temporary reductions, importers should audit their HTS classifications now to avoid overpaying or underpaying.

On June 1, 2026, the President issued Proclamation 11032, “Further Adjusting the Tariff Regimes for Imports of Aluminum, Steel, and Copper Into the United States,” amending the April 2026 Section 232 framework (Proclamation 11021). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) followed on June 5 with implementation guidance in CSMS #68855869. The changes take effect for goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from a warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. ET on June 8, 2026. 

This is not a uniform tariff cut. The proclamation does two opposite things at once. It reduces Section 232 rates on a large block of machinery and equipment, while simultaneously adding new products to the duty regime for the first time. If you import equipment, the change may help you. If you import certain furniture parts, lithographic plates, or steel racks, you may have just become newly dutiable.  

What Changed on June 8 

  1. New products […]

By |2026-06-08T17:20:12-04:00June 8, 2026|Import, International Trade, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)|Comments Off on New Section 232 Action: What the June 2026 Aluminum, Steel & Copper Proclamation Means for Your Imports
Read More

USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has recently announced a series of significant Section 301 actions targeting a range of trade-related concerns, including intellectual property protection, forced labor, and alleged unfair trade practices. Collectively, these developments demonstrate the Administration’s continued willingness to utilize Section 301 as a tool to address perceived barriers to U.S. commerce and advance broader trade policy objectives. 

Vietnam

On May 29, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing an investigation of Vietnam under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation follows identifying Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country in the 2026 Special 301 Report, which was published on April 30, 2026. The investigation will seek to determine whether Vietnam’s persistent failure to resolve long-standing concerns about intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce

Once the investigation is complete, Ambassador Greer will determine what, if any, responsive action should be taken to address them. Comments in this proceeding are due July 2, 2026. 

Brazil

On June 2, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing a determination under Section 301 that certain of Brazil’s acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act. These acts, policies, and practices include: 

    […]
By |2026-06-05T11:10:39-04:00June 5, 2026|301 INVESTIGATIONS, Enforcement, International Trade, Special 301, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)|Comments Off on USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers 
Read More

Appeals Court Keeps Section 122 Tariffs in Place (For Now): What Importers Need to Know

On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a significant decision holding that the Trump Administration’s 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 were unlawful. Just days later, on May 12, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stepped in and temporarily stayed that ruling. 

Thus, despite a major legal victory for plaintiff-importers at the CIT, and the hope provided to non-parties seeking similar relief in their own proceedings, Section 122 tariffs remain in effect – for now – while the appeal proceeds.  

Key Takeaways from the Stay 

The stay issued by the Court of Appeals pauses the CIT’s judgment while the Appeals Court considers the government’s motion for a longer stay pending appeal. The original plaintiffs have seven days to respond to the government’s motion, and the Court of Appeals has set an expedited briefing schedule, signaling that further developments should come quickly. 

Since this decision does not adjudicate the merits of the case (i.e., agree or disagree with the CIT’s decision), importers who are not party to the original lawsuit can still plan to file their own lawsuits with the CIT because Section 122 tariffs are unlawful. Additionally, the Appeals Court’s order keeps the collection of the 122 tariffs in place.  

What This Order Means for Importers 

1. Duties Must Still Be Paid

CBP will continue to assess and collect the 10% Section […]

By |2026-05-14T12:45:23-04:00May 14, 2026|International Trade, Tariffs, Trade Policy|Comments Off on Appeals Court Keeps Section 122 Tariffs in Place (For Now): What Importers Need to Know
Read More

Title: Another Blow to the U.S. Tariff War: Can Importers Obtain Refunds After Section 122 Tariffs Were Invalidated? 

On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the Section 122 tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the Trade Act of 1974 are invalid. Previously, tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—including the “reciprocal tariffs” and the “fentanyl tariffs”—had been ruled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2026. On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the CIT issued an order requiring the refund of all IEEPA tariffs paid by importers. 

So, what does the invalidation of the Section 122 tariffs mean? How does it relate to the IEEPA tariffs? Can importers who have paid Section 122 tariffs also apply for refunds?

I. The Launch and Termination of IEEPA Tariffs 

In fact, the Section 122 tariffs served as a “backup plan” for the IEEPA tariffs. To understand the relationship between the two, we must first clarify the entire process of the IEEPA tariffs from initiation to termination. 

The IEEPA tariffs were imposed by the Trump administration in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA authorizes the President, after declaring a national emergency, to broadly regulate various economic transactions, and it is a core document of modern U.S. sanctions mechanisms. It originated from the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which was enacted after World War I to regulate transactions with hostile nations. The scope of TWEA was expanded in the 1930s, allowing the President to declare a […]

By |2026-05-12T09:34:28-04:00May 12, 2026|International Trade, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Court of International Trade|Comments Off on Title: Another Blow to the U.S. Tariff War: Can Importers Obtain Refunds After Section 122 Tariffs Were Invalidated? 
Read More

Tariff and Macroeconomic Risk Disclosures:

Lessons from Recent Shareholder Litigation Against Dow and Tronox

Authors:  

Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law
Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law 

Recent securities class actions against Dow Inc. and Tronox Holdings plc underscore the growing litigation risk associated with tariff‑related and broader economic disclosures in periodic reports, earnings calls, and investor communications. These cases highlight how shareholder plaintiffs are scrutinizing statements that characterize tariffs and related headwinds as manageable, temporary, or hypothetical when subsequent developments suggest a more pronounced or foreseeable impact. 

As public companies continue to navigate volatile trade policy, supply chain disruption, and demand uncertainty, these lawsuits provide concrete guidance on how the SEC’s disclosure framework—particularly risk factors and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) “known trends” disclosures—may be applied in hindsight by regulators and private litigants. 

Regulatory Framework: Risk Factors and Known Trends 

SEC rules make clear that companies must disclose certain risks to investors. For example, Item 105 of Regulation S‑K requires companies to disclose material risks that make an investment speculative or risky, while Item 303 requires MD&A discussion of known trends, events, or uncertainties reasonably likely to have a material impact on financial condition or operating results. In this context, tariffs – particularly where they affect costs, pricing, demand, or dividends – have increasingly been viewed as classic “known trends,” rather than contingent or […]

By |2026-04-17T12:30:14-04:00April 17, 2026|International Trade, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)|Comments Off on Tariff and Macroeconomic Risk Disclosures:
Read More

FinCEN Issues NPRM to Fully Implement Whistleblower Program

Authors:

Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law

Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

FinCEN’s March 30, 2026, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) marks a major step toward fully operationalizing the agency’s whistleblower program, designed to incentivize reporting of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), sanctions, IEEPA, and other illicit finance violations. The proposal outlines how whistleblowers can securely submit information, how awards will be determined, and what protections will be available.  

This development reflects the Treasury Department’s broader strategy to strengthen financial system integrity and encourage actionable tips that support enforcement efforts. For financial institutions, compliance professionals, and potential whistleblowers, the NPRM provides long‑awaited clarity on program structure and expectations. 

Overview of the Proposed Rule 

FinCEN’s NPRM proposes a comprehensive framework for administering whistleblower submissions and awards. Key elements include: 

  • Secure submission procedures for individuals reporting suspected violations of the BSA, OFAC sanctions, and related laws. 
  • Eligibility criteria for whistleblower awards, including documentation requirements and timelines. 
  • Award ranges of 10–30% of monetary penalties collected when a whistleblower’s information leads to a successful enforcement action. 
  • Robust protections for individuals who provide information, including confidentiality and anti‑retaliation safeguards. 

These provisions aim to encourage early, detailed reporting while ensuring whistleblowers are shielded from adverse consequences. 

Why FinCEN Is Prioritizing Whistleblower Incentives 

The NPRM aligns with Treasury’s broader […]

By |2026-04-03T10:52:11-04:00April 3, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, Trade Policy, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)|Comments Off on FinCEN Issues NPRM to Fully Implement Whistleblower Program
Read More
Go to Top