As importers respond to swift changes in the deployment of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum (see 2506030071), they should continue to follow due diligence protocols for entry filing -- and that means even when CBP's guidance on additional subheadings for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties doesn't fully align with what's in official documents, such as the Federal Register, multiple customs attorneys told International Trade Today.
China this week criticized the Trump administration's decision to double tariffs on steel and aluminum, saying the tariffs will backfire on the U.S. and “seriously disrupt the stability of the global industrial chain and supply chain.”
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum promised unspecified retaliatory measures against the U.S. for doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum, unless a deal is struck between the two countries before next week.
President Donald Trump got the phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping he'd been seeking, and Trump wrote on social media that "there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products."
CBP listed new Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings as subject to now 50% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum derivatives, in attachments to its CSMS messages issued late June 3 offering guidance on the tariff increase.
Widespread problems with transmitting foreign-trade zone entries are one of several technical problems that plague customs brokers and compliance managers as the effects of the Trump administration's rapid policy changes make themselves felt. Compounding the difficulties is the administration's decision to pull back from engagement with the trade industry through its Trade Support Network and the cancellation of bi-weekly ACE calls.
Joseph Barloon, who was a general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative during Donald Trump's first term, told Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that he believes in rules-based trade.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 19-25 and May 26 - June 1:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 3 stayed its decision finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't provide for tariffs, pending the government's appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Rudolph Contreras said a stay is "appropriate to protect the President’s ability to identify and respond to threats to the U.S. economy and national security" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2 said the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction via Section 1581(i) to hear California's challenge to all tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs are laws of the U.S. for purposes of Section 1581(i), since they modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the law implementing the HTS, 19 U.S.C. 3004, says the HTS includes modifications made by the president (State of California v. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).