<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>customs tariffs &#8211; Sharretts, Paley, Carter &amp; Blauvelt, P.C.</title>
	<atom:link href="https://spcblaw.com/tag/customs-tariffs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://spcblaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 16:08:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>USTR Makes Findings and Proposes Action in ﻿Section 301 Investigations</title>
		<link>https://spcblaw.com/2026/06/03/ustr-findings-section-301-investigations/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geraldine Tourny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 17:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Client Alerts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[301 investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[301 tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 301]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 301 ustr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tariffs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://spcblaw.com/?p=4103</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) took the first step towards implementing new 301 tariffs. In this regard, USTR determined that additional tariffs were warranted in response to the “acts, policies, and practices” of countries that have not effectively imposed and enforced a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. USTR...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="justify">Yesterday, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) took the first step towards implementing new 301 tariffs.</p>
<p align="justify">In this regard, USTR <a href="https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-makes-findings-and-proposes-action-60-section-301-investigations-relating-failures-take-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">determined</a> that additional tariffs were warranted in response to the “acts, policies, and practices” of countries that have not effectively imposed and enforced a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. USTR found the actions of those countries is unreasonable, burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act.</p>
<p>As a result, the USTR has proposed the following additional tariffs.</p>
<ul>
<li>A 10% tariff on products from the following that either currently impose (but have failed to effectively enforce), or have undertaken commitments to impose, a prohibition on the importation of forced labor goods: the EU, the UK, Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, Cambodia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan and Taiwan;</li>
<li>A 12.5% tariff on products from the remaining countries under investigation, including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Vietnam. For a complete list of affected countries, please contact us.</li>
</ul>
<p align="justify">It is expected, however, that these tariffs will not be apply to either USMCA-qualifying importations or on apparel eligible for entry under DR- CAFTA.</p>
<p align="justify">Comments this proposal are due July 6, 2026, and USTR will hold hearings about the proposed actions in these investigations on July 7, 2026. Those interested in testifying must advice USTR by June 22, 2026.</p>
<p align="justify">We strongly recommend that clients who will be impacted by these tariffs consider filing comments. We are available to assist with this process as needed.</p>
<p align="justify">For further information, please contact Gail Cumins at <a href="mailto:gcumins@spcblaw.com">gcumins@spcblaw.com</a>, Alli Baron at <a href="mailto:abaron@spcblaw.com">abaron@spcblaw.com</a> or call us at 212-425-0055.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government Announces Intent to Appeal CIT Order on IEEPA Duty Refunds</title>
		<link>https://spcblaw.com/2026/05/31/appeal-ieepa-refund-order/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geraldine Tourny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2026 19:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Client Alerts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court of International Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA refunds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA tariffs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://spcblaw.com/?p=4101</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Government has now formally announced its intention to appeal the U.S. Court of International Trade’s order requiring refunds of IEEPA duties on finally liquidated entries. Specifically, the Government intends to challenge the Court’s authority to order refunds for importers that are not parties to the litigation and whose entries have become final. Accordingly, companies...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="justify">The Government has now formally announced its intention to appeal the U.S. Court of International Trade’s order requiring refunds of IEEPA duties on finally liquidated entries. Specifically, the Government <a href="https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/trump-administration-will-appeal-universal-tariff-refund-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">intends</a> to challenge the Court’s authority to order refunds for importers that are not parties to the litigation and whose entries have become final.</p>
<p align="justify">Accordingly, companies that have not yet joined the litigation, but have potential refunds associated with entries that liquidated more than 90 days ago, should consider filing their own protective pleading with the CIT as soon as possible.</p>
<p align="justify">In this regard, given the Government’s position, it is increasingly likely that a company-specific court order will be required to recover refunds on finally liquidated entries.</p>
<p align="justify">Please <a href="https://spcblaw.com/2026/05/08/section-122-tariffs-unlawful/#:~:text=Follow%20us%3A-,CONTACT%20US,-Home">contact us</a> if you are interested in filing. We will continue to keep you apprised of further developments.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIT Raises Possibility of Broader IEEPA Duty Refunds on Entries Ineligible for CAPE Phase 1</title>
		<link>https://spcblaw.com/2026/05/28/cit-broader-ieepa-duty-refunds/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geraldine Tourny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 18:23:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Client Alerts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAPE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs refunds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global tariffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEEPA refunds]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://spcblaw.com/?p=4099</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This week, during a closed-door hearing at the Court of International Trade (CIT), Judge Eaton questioned why no progress has been made on refunding IEEPA tariffs paid in connection with entries beyond the “deemed liquidated” status stage. The Court requested that Customs submit a brief explaining why it should not be required to refund all IEEPA...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="justify">This week, during a closed-door hearing at the Court of International Trade (CIT), Judge Eaton questioned why no progress has been made on refunding IEEPA tariffs paid in connection with entries beyond the “deemed liquidated” status stage. The Court requested that Customs submit a brief explaining why it should not be required to refund all IEEPA duties collected on all entries, regardless of liquidation status or date of liquidation.</p>
<p align="justify">The Court, unusually, has also <a href="https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/2482275/court-orders-cbp-commish-to-testify-in-tariff-refund-suit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">instructed</a> Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner of Customs, to appear in person on June 9, 2026, to discuss the agency&#8217;s plans to comply with the Court&#8217;s order to reliquidate all applicable entries without IEEPA duties.</p>
<p align="justify">Customs has also been instructed to submit an updated CAPE progress report by June 10, 2026.</p>
<p align="justify">Collectively, these developments suggest that the CIT is considering the possibility of ordering the broad refund of all IEEPA duties, including those associated with entries presently excluded from CAPE phase 1.</p>
<p align="justify">However, it is also possible the government will respond to these instructions by filing an appeal to the CIT’s original refund order. Any appeal would need to be filed by June 6, 2026.</p>
<p align="justify">With so many questions remaining, it is imperative that you continue to take the necessary steps to protect your company’s IEEPA refunds.</p>
<p align="justify">Please <a href="https://spcblaw.com/about-us/contact/">contact us</a> to discuss the best course of action for your company at this time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
