It has been a busy week in tariff and trade developments and not in a good way. Below is an update on the latest developments. There is a lot of information, and it is complicated, so please feel free to reach out to WSSA with any specific questions or clarifications. We also are providing a link to an article published yesterday on the IEEPA situation with comments from WSSA.

Section 301 Tariff Proposal:

Even though the Supreme Court recently shut down the IEEPA tariffs, the administration is rebuilding the lost revenue using a different legal tool: Section 301. Section 301 is part of a trade law that allows the U.S. to impose tariffs on countries it accuses of unfair trade practices. The USTR has published proposed tariffs on 60 countries based on either alleged use of “forced labor” or not having proper safeguards to prevent imports from countries that may use forced labor in production processes.

USTR’s found 54 of the 60 countries have no such import ban at all, and the other 6 have regulations but do not necessarily enforce the ban effectively. Yesterday, USTR published a report on their findings and a Federal Register Notice with the proposed tariffs.

The proposed tariffs are listed below and keep in mind these are proposals only at this time and if finalized, would not go into effect until approximately July 24.

10% Additional Tariff: Applies to countries that already have a forced-labor import ban, have committed to one through a recent trade agreement, or have a partial ban in place.

• Already have a ban: Canada, Ecuador, European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan
• Committed via trade deals: Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan
• Partial ban: United Kingdom

12.5% Additional Tariff: Applies to all other listed countries — those with no ban and no commitment in place.

• Australia, New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, India, Norway, Türkiye, Switzerland, China, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Algeria, Angola, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Products Exempt from proposed tariffs:

• Anything already paying a Section 232 tariff (the tariffs don’t stack)
• Goods that qualify under USMCA
• Duty-free textiles and apparel from CAFTA-DR countries (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua)
• Raw materials the U.S. can’t produce domestically in sufficient amounts
• Goods whose tariffing would cause broad economic disruption
• Items like books, donations, and personal travel baggage

The full exempt list is in Annex A of the notice and excludes products by specific HTSUS code. The published list reaches across food, agriculture, minerals, fuels, and chemicals but it does not include Chapter 22 of the HTSUS, which covers virtually all beverage alcohol. Currently scotch whisky is not exempted, despite Trump’s proclamation on this matter but may be exempted at a later date.

The public comment section is open through July 6^th. USTR is specifically asking for comments on specific questions and importers should focus on these if they want to influence the outcome. USTR has laid out the questions it wants commenters to address:

• Should specific products be added to or removed from the tariff list? If your product is currently in scope and you want it out, this is where to make the case. If a product currently in Annex A (exempt) should not be, USTR wants to hear that too.
• Are the Annex A exemptions appropriate? USTR is open to argument either way on items already excluded.
• Is the tariff rate right? Comments can argue the 10% or 12.5% rate is too high, too low, or should be different.
• Should the country tiers be structured differently? USTR is asking whether countries with full bans, partial regimes, or trade-deal commitments should be treated differently than they’re proposing.

For arguments to exclude a specific product, USTR has signaled it will weigh three things in particular:

1. Whether the product is a raw material that, if tariffed, would create domestic supply problems
2. Whether tariffing the product would cause serious supply disruptions or broader economic harm
3. Whether tariffing the product would actually be effective in getting the targeted countries to change their forced-labor enforcement — in other words, is there a real connection between hitting this product with a tariff and the policy goal?

Key dates to note:

• June 22: deadline to request to speak at the hearing
• July 6: deadline to submit written comments
• July 7: hearings begin at the International Trade Commission
• 5 days after hearings end — deadline for rebuttal comments

Comments are open to all and if you would like us to add comments on your behalf, please send to info@wssa.com.  We will also be coordinating with industry associations during the comment period to make sure that we fight for exemption for beverage alcohol.  We will continue to provide updates on the proposed tariffs as they become available.

IEEPA Litigation:

The Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered Customs to refund IEEPA tariffs to all affected importers, not just the ones who actually filed lawsuits. Last Friday, the DOJ/ Department of Justice issued an appeal on the CIT universal injunction. The DOJ is basically stating that the universal refund exceeds the CBP statutory authority to automatically refund entries that past the final liquidation period.  In these cases, the appeal states that the refunds should only apply to importers who have filed lawsuits. Thus, whether importers need to file cases at the CIT to protect rights to refunds on these entries is the open question right now.

Key items to note:

• DOJ is appealing the “universal” part of the order. They argue that under a recent Supreme Court case (Trump v. CASA), the CIT doesn’t have the authority to order refunds for importers who didn’t actually sue. If DOJ wins, the broad refund order would shrink to cover only the named plaintiffs in the cases. We do not expect this to impact the Phase 1 filings or ongoing refunds.
• DOJ’s appeal deadline is June 6.
• Refunds so far: Customs reports about $20 billion of refunds have been certified and sent to Treasury for payout, out of roughly $166 billion total at issue,  only about 12%
• CIT Phase 1 (CAPE process) is still moving. $85 billion in claims has been accepted into processing. The DOJ appeal doesn’t immediately disrupt that.
• The judge is frustrated with CBP. Judge Eaton is especially worried about the huge volume of small/informal entries that liquidated immediately at entry and are now final, Customs hasn’t presented any plan to handle these.
• June 9 hearing. The judge has ordered CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in person, which is highly unusual for someone at that level. CBP has objected to this and wants to send a lower level staff member to the hearing.
• Several rulings/deadlines coming this week:
  • June 2: Judge Eaton expected to rule on DOJ’s motion to amend the order
  • June 4: DOJ’s response to the CIT’s order due
  • June 6: DOJ appeal deadline
  • June 9: CIT hearing with CBP Commissioner

What this means for you as an importer:

• Do you need to file your own CIT lawsuit? Probably not yet — but it’s no longer a settled question. If the DOJ succeeds in narrowing the order to just named plaintiffs, importers who haven’t filed could be left out.
• If you have entries that will go final (liquidate) in the next ~10 days: consider filing a protest to keep them open. That preserves your rights while the dust settles.
• If you don’t file a protest: you still have until roughly early 2027 to file a claim directly with the CIT (the deadline is 2 years from the date of entry).
• Best-case scenario: the court forces Customs to handle all refunds administratively, no individual lawsuits needed. But that outcome isn’t guaranteed.

The next two weeks will be pivotal. Between Judge Eaton’s expected rulings, the DOJ’s appeal, and the June 9 hearing, the scope of who gets refunded and how could shift quickly. For now, the safest approach is to keep a close eye on any entries approaching final liquidation, file protests where it makes sense to preserve your options, and hold off on a CIT filing unless your specific situation warrants it. We’ll continue to monitor developments and share updates as they unfold. If you have entries you’re uncertain about, or if you’d like to share your refund data anonymously to help build an industry benchmark, please reach out. As always, please contact WSSA with any questions at info@wssa.com.