CBP may still suspend some duty collections, according to a person knowledgeable of the discussions. The Wall Street Journal said in a March 27 report that duty collections would be deferred for three months, though President Donald Trump called the report "fake news."

CBP will no longer take requests to defer payments of customs duties, the agency said in a CSMS message. "CBP will retain the right to allow additional days for narrow circumstances, including a physical inability to file entry or payments, due to technology outages or port closures," the agency said.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued another set of product exclusions from the fourth group of Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. The new exclusions from the tariffs include "five 10-digit HTSUS subheadings and seven specially prepared product descriptions, which together cover 36 separate exclusion requests." according to the notice. The product exclusions apply retroactively to Sept. 1, 2019, the date the fourth set of tariffs took effect. The exclusions will remain in effect until Sept. 1.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued another set of product exclusions from the third group of Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. The new exclusions from the tariffs include "one 10-digit HTSUS subheading, which covers one exclusion request, and 176 specially prepared product descriptions, which cover 202 separate exclusion requests." according to the notice. The product exclusions apply retroactively to Sept. 24, 2018, the date the third set of tariffs took effect. The exclusions will remain in effect until Aug. 7, 2020.

CBP is looking at allowing extensions for duty payments in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America said in a March 19 email following an industry update call with CBP. The NCBFAA and other industry members recently suggested in a letter that CBP consider such extensions, it said. "CBP understands the major impact this could have and is currently researching to see if the plan is feasible," said the NCBFAA. "In the meantime, CBP is considering case-by-case deferrals."

Due to virus outbreak concerns, the majority of our staff is teleworking. We will be publishing without interruption and your subscriptions will be delivered on their normal schedule.

Canada's House of Commons approved the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement -- called CUSMA in Canada -- by unanimous consent March 13, before adjourning until April 20th due to coronavirus. The Canadian Senate passed it less than an hour later. The last step of royal assent is a formality. Now, all three countries must continue to work on uniform regulations so that they can certify the treaty is ready to enter into force. Once that certification is issued, NAFTA will be replaced on the first day of the third month after the announcement.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued new medical supply product exclusions from the fourth group of Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. The new exclusions from the tariffs "are reflected in 19 specially prepared product descriptions, which cover 39 separate exclusion requests," according to the notice. The product exclusions apply retroactively to Sept. 1, 2019, and will remain in effect until Sept. 1, 2020.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued new medical supply product exclusions from the fourth group of Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. The new exclusions from the tariffs "are reflected in 8 10-digit HTSUS subheadings, which cover 59 separate exclusion requests," according to the notice. The product exclusions apply retroactively to Sept. 1, 2019, and will remain in effect until Sept. 1, 2020.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 28 ruled that Section 232 tariffs are constitutional, finding itself bound by Supreme Court precedent set in the 1970s. Just as the Court of International Trade ruled in March 2019 in a lawsuit filed by the American Institute of International Steel, the Federal Circuit said it could not overturn the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling, which found Section 232 to be a constitutional delegation of authority. The CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision “without deciding what ruling on the constitutional challenge would be proper in the absence of” the Supreme Court precedent.