Chapter1, a small Nevada-based importer represented by boutique litigation firm Gerstein Harrow, filed a case at the Court of International Trade on May 29 seeking class certification for all importers that have paid tariffs recently invalidated by the trade court. The suit, if successful in challenging the tariffs and establishing class certification, would provide refunds for all companies that have paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).

Both on social media and during a press conference, President Donald Trump said China has not fulfilled its promises offered as part of the de-escalation from 145% U.S. tariffs and 125% Chinese tariffs.

President Donald Trump said May 30 he plans to double tariffs on imported steel to 50%. “We’re going to bring it from 25% to 50% -- the tariffs on steel into the United States of America -- which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States," Trump said at a U.S. Steel facility in Pennsylvania. "Nobody’s going to get around that." He didn't say when the new duties will take effect.

CBP is extending a tariff exemption for goods that are in-transit to reflect the May 28 Court of International Trade judgment vacating President Donald Trump's International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico (see 2505280067). "CBP’s updated guidance is that it is generally not realistic for shipments to qualify for the in-transit exceptions if entry is not made prior to June 16, 2025," it said May 30. CBP previously said the in-transit exemptions would end May 28.

The emphasis on collecting the revenue generated from the higher tariffs levied during President Donald Trump's second term, as well as the political will behind those higher duties, are compelllng CBP to shift toward prioritizing trade enforcement over trade facilitation, trade experts told International Trade Today.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't allow the president to impose tariffs, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 29. A day after the Court of International Trade vacated and permanently enjoined all the tariff executive orders issued under IEEPA by President Donald Trump, the D.C. court went a step further and categorically ruled that IEEPA doesn't include the power to impose tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-1248).

The end of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs imposed over fentanyl smuggling from China, Canada and Mexico is on hold until an appellate court decides if the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal for those purposes.

The Commerce Department, after suggesting that the import of semiconductors, products containing semiconductors, and equipment and inputs used to make chips could be making the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, is now hearing from dozens of stakeholders who say the administration has it completely backwards. Time after time, in more than 150 submitted comments for the Section 232 investigation, stakeholders said imposing tariffs is what would lead to shortages, manufacturing woes, and a loss of competitiveness in the design and manufacture of chips.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).