President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the duty-free de minimis threshold for goods from China, issued as part of his 10% tariff hike on Chinese products, likely will face legal challenges due to the economic importance of the de minimis rule, customs attorney Lawrence Friedman told us. However, many questions remain on the precise scope of any resulting change, along with the legal theory underpinning it.
After President Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariff action on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as well as now-delayed IEEPA tariffs on Mexico and Canada, trade lawyers told us to expect the duties to be challenged in court. Matt Nicely, lead counsel in the ongoing case against tariffs imposed on China during Trump's first administration, said in an email that a legal challenge is coming, a sentiment echoed across the trade bar.
In light of speculation about whether President-elect Donald Trump will use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada, observers are revisiting the lone decision in the history of U.S. case law reviewing emergency trade action: U.S. v. Yoshida International.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
President-elect Donald Trump will most likely either turn to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose his recently announced tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, said trade lawyers interviewed by Trade Law Daily. Though much remains unknown about how Trump will impose these tariffs, the president-elect may turn to the two broad statutes to impose the tariffs to accomplish his stated goals of curbing the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the U.S.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
If a reelected President Donald Trump uses the existing Section 301 tariffs program to hike tariffs on all Chinese goods by at least 60%, that's likely to survive a court challenge, said two law professors who spoke during a Washington International Trade Association webinar on the executive branch's ability to make deals and impose trade restrictions without congressional say-so.
Domestic steel producer Zekelman Industries filed a lawsuit on Oct. 21 in a Washington, D.C., federal court alleging that the Mexican government breached its 2019 agreement with the U.S. to slow imports of Mexican steel products. The company argued that Mexico's breach of the deal "has devastated the U.S. steel industry," forcing the company to close two plants due to the oversupply of cheap steel (Zekelman Industries v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-02992).
Texas-based syringe importer Retractable Technologies took to the Court of International Trade to contest the 100% increase of Section 301 tariffs recently imposed on needles and syringes from China. The complaint is seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the duties, claiming that the tariffs could send the company out of business (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).