duties Archives | Customs & International Trade Law Blog

CIT Strikes Down Section 122 Tariffs: What This Means for Businesses

On the afternoon of May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a significant decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. In State of Oregon et al. v. United States and companion cases, the court granted summary judgment for certain importer plaintiffs and permanently enjoined enforcement of the tariffs as unlawful. The Court found that only importers and not states had standing to challenge this action and limited the relief to those importer plaintiffs in Court. This relief, while precedential, does not apply at this time to anyone not in this court case. In order to benefit, it appears that entities will need to file their own case seeking similar relief.

This decision sharply limits presidential authority to impose tariffs under Section 122 – a section of the Trade Act that the President was reliant upon after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs in February 2026.

The Section 122 Tariffs at Issue

The case challenged Proclamation No. 11012, which imposed a 10% ad valorem tariff on most imported goods beginning February 24, 2026.

The administration justified the tariffs under Section 122, which allows temporary import surcharges (up to 15%) to address “fundamental international payments problems,” including “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”

To support the tariffs, the Proclamation relied on:

A […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-05-08T09:21:31-04:00May 8, 2026|Tariffs|Comments Off

IEEPA May Be on the Chopping Block, But Your Duty Exposure Isn’t

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held oral arguments for Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., regarding the legality of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The case will ultimately decide whether the Trump Administration has the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. Importers and trade professionals are watching the case closely, but even if the IEEPA tariffs are thrown out, the new administration has made clear that it will pivot and use other legal avenues to impose tariffs. Since oral argument, multiple discussions have been held with the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs regarding any refund possibilities. Based on these discussions, it appears that the United States is anticipating losing this matter at the Supreme Court but wants to put barriers to recovery. The United States has also clearly stated that they intend to find other ways to impose similar duties.

The message is clear: even if the Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs, tariff exposure is here to stay. NOW is the time for importers to revisit their valuation practices, explore duty minimization strategies, and ensure they are taking every lawful step to minimize duty impact going forward.

Why Tariffs Will Stay Even if IEEPA Dies

Since the earliest days of the Trump Administration, the White House has made tariffs a cornerstone of their trade and “America First” policy. The President and Administration officials have repeatedly touted tariffs as one of the best tools available to level the international trade playing field, […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-01-09T17:05:29-05:00January 9, 2026|Import, Tariffs|Comments Off

Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico

On July 10, 2024, President Biden issued two proclamations on adjusting imports of steel and aluminum into the United States. The proclamations increase the section 232 duty rate for both products and adjust the requirements for avoiding section 232 duties.

Steel Proclamation

The steel proclamation implements a melt and pour requirement for imports of steel articles that are products of Mexico. It also increases the section 232 duty rate for imports of steel articles and derivative steel articles that are products of Mexico that are melted and poured in a country other than Mexico, Canada, or the United States. If the country of melt and pour is any country other than the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, then the steel articles are subject to an additional 25% duty.

In making this adjustment, the Administration stated that domestic steel producers’ capacity utilization remains below the target 80 percent capacity utilization recommended in the Secretary of Commerce’s report of January 11, 2018. Additionally, imports of steel articles from Mexico have increased significantly. In the opinion of the Administration and the Secretary of Commerce, these developments indicate the need for further action under section 232.

Aluminum Proclamation

The aluminum proclamation implemented a country of smelt and country of most recent cast requirement for imports of aluminum articles that are products of Mexico. It also increased the section 232 duty rate for imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles that are products of Mexico containing aluminum for which the reported […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-09-06T12:51:36-04:00September 6, 2024|China, Countries, IRAN, Mexico, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off

Trade News: New Antidumping Case Filed Against Disposable Aluminum Containers, Pans and Trays from China

A petition was filed on May 16, 2024 seeking the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of disposable aluminum, containers, pans, and trays from China.

Full list of producers and exporters here. Full list of U.S. importers here.

The merchandise covered is disposable aluminum containers, pans, and trays produced primarily from flat- rolled aluminum. The subject merchandise includes disposable aluminum containers, pans, and trays regardless of shape or size. The covered disposable aluminum containers are typically used in food-related applications, including but not limited to food preparation, packaging, and baking.

Full scope here.

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days.

As with any proceeding, participation is very important to protect your rights. We urge anyone who imports disposable aluminum containers, pans, and trays to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor this case and share updates. For more information or questions get in touch with us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-05-17T09:27:26-04:00May 17, 2024|AD/CVD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off

Ford Motor Company Settles Claims Relating to Under-Valued Vehicles for $365M

Ford Motor Company has agreed to pay $365 million for allegedly misclassifying and understating the value of hundreds of thousands of vehicles.

According to the Department of Justice, Ford engaged in a scheme to avoid higher duties by misclassifying cargo vans. Between 2009 and 2013, the company imported Transit Connect cargo vans into the United States but presented them to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with temporary seats and other features to make them appear to be passenger vehicles. The seats were never intended to carry passengers and Ford removed them as part of post-importation processing. The inclusion of the seats allowed Ford to avoid paying the 25% duty rate for cargo vehicles and instead they paid a duty rate of just 2.5%.

This case dates back to February 2012 when the Port of Baltimore advised Ford it was initiating an investigation into Ford’s classification practices. (Typically, prior to investigating an entity, CBP sends a request for information first. For more information on how this process typically begins read “Now, More than Ever, Be Wary of and Responsive to a CBP Form 28!”).

In 2013 Customs determined that the vans were improperly classified and liquidated the vehicles at the 25% duty rate. Ford protested, and Customs denied the protest. Ford then filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT agreed with Ford, finding that Ford engaged in legitimate tariff engineering. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-03-15T14:50:57-04:00March 15, 2024|Import, Penalty|Comments Off

Proposed 25% Tariffs on Section 301 Digital Service Taxes – Comment Now

Background on Section 301 Digital Service Taxes

In 2020, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) initiated Section 301 investigations with respect to certain Digital Service Taxes (“DSTs”) being adopted or under consideration by a number of countries. DSTs are taxes on revenues that certain companies generate from providing certain digital services to users in those jurisdictions. According to USTR, available evidence suggests that DSTs are expected to target large, U.S.-based technology companies.

[…]

By Jennifer Diaz|2021-10-12T14:40:02-04:00April 1, 2021|301 INVESTIGATIONS, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Investigation, Trade Policy, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)|Comments Off

PAYING CHINESE TARIFF’S & YOUR COMPETITORS AREN’T?

Now that the Section 301 tariffs are effective, importers are required pay additional duties – but not all are doing so. We found that while some importers know their product is subject to one of the 3 Chinese tariff lists, they are either using HTS’s not on the list (even though that is not the correct HTS for their product), or using an HTS subject to additional tariffs, but, not paying the additional tariffs. If you are an honest importer paying the correct amount of additional duties, this may leave you unable to compete in the current market.

If you’ve noticed that some of your competitor’s pricing has not been affected by the additional tariffs and you have been forced to increase your prices to stay in business, you have an option to help equal the playing field.

[…]

By Jennifer Diaz|2021-10-29T15:10:00-04:00January 22, 2019|AD/CVD, Best Practices, China, Import, International Law, International Trade, Penalty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|2 Comments

U.S. issues additional Chinese Tariffs – Is Your Product on the List?/ EE.UU. Emite Aranceles Adicionales a Bienes Chinos: ¿Su Producto Está En La Lista?

On June 15, President Trump kept true to his May 29^th promise of imposing additional tariffs against Chinese goods. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has officially released the “Section 301 Product List”. The additional duties are effective on or after July 6, 2018.

History […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2022-07-06T16:08:37-04:00July 5, 2018|Customs Broker, Export, Import, Import Alert, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|3 Comments

Free Trade Agreements: Good or Bad?

I am still troubled by the Wall Street Journal lead article on October 4, 2010 with the headline "Recession-Weary Americans Sour on Free Trade." I asked myself why would Americans who live in an economy built successfully on the principles of capitalism and free enterprise be against international trade? My bold prediction is that 2011 will be the year that the Obama Administration successfully finalizes free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, and then Congress passes laws approving them.

By Jennifer Diaz|2011-01-09T20:11:40-05:00January 9, 2011|U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)|2 Comments