Full list of exporters here. 

Import volume here.  

Background on AD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) is brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by these investigations is all forms of polytetramethylene ether glycol (“PTMEG”).  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 3907.29.00 and 2932.11.00.   

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days. 

As with any proceeding, participation is very important to protect your rights. We urge anyone who imports Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol from China, South Korea, Taiwan, or Vietnam to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD investigations can result in determinations adverse to respondent interests for years that could effectively prohibit access to the U.S. market. Failure to effectively participate in investigations can put exporters and importers at a significant disadvantage. 

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor this case and share updates.

For more information or questions, get in touch with us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com. 

Self-Assessment Tools

DOL launched four voluntary self-assessment tools that provide practical, user-friendly guidance to help companies map supply-chain risks and evaluate labor practices. The tools can also guide companies in taking steps to ensure alignment with U.S. forced labor laws and strengthen supply chains that support American workers and American industry.

The new tools are: 

• LaborShield: A mobile app that features information on egregious labor violations in over 145 countries (formerly the Sweat and Toil app).
• ImportWatch: A resource that brings together the department’s labor abuse research with U.S. import data from the U.S. Census Bureau to produce a red-flag list of all high-risk goods for U.S. importers.
• SourcingStrong: A tool to help U.S. businesses build strong labor due diligence systems to identify and manage risk in their supply chains.
  
• Supply Chain Traceability Portal: The portal provides visibility across supply chains and beyond the first tier to expose where exploitative labor hides.

Announcement Insights 

Diaz Trade Law was in attendance at the launch event in Washington, D.C. – hosted by the DOL and co-sponsored by the Responsible Business Alliance. The program featured remarks from Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling, followed by a fireside chat with top executives from leading U.S. industries.

At the event, DOL representatives stated the department wants “good actors” to use these tools and to give feedback on them. Panelists highlighted that they have been engaging with DOL for years on the issues of forced labor in foreign supply chains. DOL’s stated goal is to level the playing field for U.S. businesses by making foreign actors play fair.

Forced Labor Enforcement Focus

DOL, among other government agencies, have made clear that enforcement of the U.S.’s forced labor laws is a priority. 

For importers, understanding who is supplying you with a product is not enough, you also need to know who is supplying them. You should have a comprehensive understanding of your supply chain that includes documentation of the various tiers of suppliers. Detailed documentation can help identify gaps and high-risk areas that may need to be revisited down the road.  

Diaz Trade Law has significant experience in a broad range of import compliance matters including forced labor compliance and enforcement mitigation. For assistance with developing or updating a forced labor compliance plan, forced labor compliance training, communicating with CBP regarding goods detained by CBP, or utilizing the new DOL tools contact us today at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

Learn more:

• Webinar: Forced Labor – Practical Tips to Secure Your Supply Chain and Comply with Regulatory Requirements
• Breaking the Chains: Forced Labor in Mexico’s Supply Chains
• CBP Launches New Forced Labor Portal 
• Bloomberg Law: U.S. Customs Targets the Use of Forced Labor
• UFLPA Guidance: What Importers Need to Know
• Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA): What You Need to Know
• CBP’s Forced Labor Process Flowchart

Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law
Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

On April 2, 2026, the President issued a proclamation strengthening Section 232 actions to adjust imports of aluminum, steel, and copper, continuing to cite national security concerns and the need to reinforce domestic metals industries. 

Key elements include: a tiered tariff structure and some products exempt from Sec. 232 tariffs, effective at 12:01 am on April 6, 2026; and manufacturing drawback claims.  

Generally, tariffs will be assessed to the full value of imported products, “regardless of their metal content,” with reduced rates for certain products from the United Kingdom (UK) and the same 200% ad valorem duty for subject metal articles from Russia. 

• Aluminum and steel articles, most copper articles, and certain derivative articles of aluminum and steel…  
  • 50%, unless either the 25% or 10% rates listed below can apply. 
    • 25% for UK products, the aluminum content of which is composed entirely of aluminum that was smelted or most recently cast in the UK, or the steel content of which is composed entirely of steel that was melted and poured in the UK. 
    • 10% for derivative articles, steel or copper content, when the metal content was smelted and cast in the U.S. 
• For certain copper and aluminum or steel derivative articles (Annex I-B)…  
  • 25%, unless either the 15% or 10% rates listed below can apply. 
    • 15% for aluminum or steel products of the UK, if smelted and cast or melted and poured in the UK. 
    • 10% for steel or copper content, when the metal content was smelted and cast in the U.S. 
• For imports listed in Annex III to this proclamation, and entered between April 6, 2026, and December 31, 2027… 
  • Rate determined by the product’s current ad valorem duty under Column 1, unless the 10% or 25% rate listed below can apply. For Column 1 duties < 15%, the additional Sec. 232 duty must be such that the sum of both is 15%. For Column 1 duties ≥ 15%, the additional Sec. 232 duty is 0%.  
    • 10% for derivative articles or steel content, when the former was smelted and cast in the US or when the latter was melted and poured in the US. \
    • 25% for imports from trading partners without normal trading relations with the U.S. (i.e., Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Belarus).  
• For imports listed in Annex III to this proclamation, and entered on or after January 1, 2028… 
  • The rate schedule applied to products listed in Annex I-B 
• Additional product-specific rules for articles or derivatives of more than one metal.  

Products Exempt from Sec. 232 Steel and Aluminum Derivatives 

• Certain items under the following chapter headings, including certain motorcycle parts: 2, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 73, 84, 85, 87, 94, and 95. (Annex II) 

Manufacturing drawback claims are available for articles that meet the following four criteria: 

• Those classifiable in an HTS listed in Annex I-B or Annex III, or later determined by the Secretary and the Trade Representative; 
• Not subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order; 
• A product of Trade Agreement Partners (TAP), which is composed of the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Canada, and any trading partner with which the United States concludes a final Agreement on Reciprocal Trade; and 
• The aluminum and copper were smelted and cast, and the steel was melted and poured in a TAP country.  

On April 3, 2026, CBP issued guidance providing instructions for submitting entries to CBP on certain steel, aluminum, and copper articles and their derivatives. See here.

See annexes here. 

View the guide for navigating new Chapter 99 Headings here. 

Learn more: 

• Section 232 Valuation in a Gray Area: What Importers Need to Know 
• ICYMI: BIS Initiates 232 Investigations of UAS and Polysilicon Imports 
• Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico 
• Tariffs and Trade Deals – Comprehensive Resource 

In January of this year, CBP quietly released a ruling (January 16, 2026/CEE.HQ H350722) that demarcates clear boundaries of where AI is permitted to facilitate Customs filings and where such artificial tools cross the “human-brokers-only” line.  

Case Background 

A foreign “Unlicensed Company” was operating an online platform and marketing to importers without seeking approval or a license from CBP. This platform offered four key services: 1) connecting importers to brokers, 2) utilizing an optical character recognition (OCR) tool to cull entry data from shipping documents, 3) generating HTSUS subheading suggestions for specific articles, and 4) submitting CBP Form 5106 on behalf of new importers. The question before CBP was whether the company was conducting customs business without a license. 

CBP Ruling 

In its ruling, CBP stated that the definition of “customs business” is quite broad. To that end, developers could accidentally create agentic parameters that trespass the bounds of what it means to engage in “customs business.” Here are some key takeaways from the ruling: 

1. “CBP cautioned that an unlicensed entity may not serve as an intermediary between a broker and importer if the unlicensed entity is actively participating ‘in decisions and activities relating to the preparation or filing of Customs documents for imported merchandise, or relating to any other action amounting to customs business.’” However, since the “Unlicensed Company was not actively participating in deciding what information must be transmitted to a broker for entry purposes, nor participating in the transmission of such documents and data to CBP, the Unlicensed Company is not impermissibly conducting customs business.”
2. “Whether data is extracted manually or automatically through an OCR tool, CBP has repeatedly held that an unlicensed entity cannot decide what data should appear on an entry.” Even if “the Unlicensed Company instead contracted to utilize an OCR tool developed by another unlicensed entity as part of the Unlicensed Company’s online platform,” CBP would find it impermissibly conducting customs business.
3. An unlicensed entity, which may incorporate an AI tool, cannot derive the HTSUS “subheadings beyond the six-digit level,” as a customs broker’s license is generally required in those instances (i.e., classification information will or may eventually be used for an entry). However, “if the Unlicensed Company’s AI classification tool only derives potential HTSUS subheadings to the six-digit level, then customs business is not being conducted.”
4. Since the preparation and electronic transmission of documents, intended to be filed with CBP, is part of the statutory definition of “customs business,” then “only a licensed customs broker may complete and submit CBP Form 5106 on behalf of another party.” 

While the identity of the company remains undisclosed, we know that other AI agents currently under development and designed to automate the highly complex arena of imports will now be far more limited than they previously envisioned. CBP has defined the new digital trade world order: AI can connect humans to humans, but it cannot replace U.S. brokers – either in their administrative or analytical capacity. 

Contact Diaz Trade Law for Assistance with CBP Compliance 

Many companies offer import-related services, but not all of them are trustworthy or experts in customs law. At the end of the day, if you import products into the U.S., YOU are the responsible party. Who do you have in your corner helping ensure you are compliant with Customs’ vast laws and regulations? Diaz Trade Law can help you navigate the complex web of CBP regulations and ensure your business remains compliant. Contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830. 

Learn more: 

• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs 
• Webinar: Importing 101: A Crash Course in CBP Compliance and Best Practices 
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan 
• Bloomberg Law: What is an Importer’s Reasonable Care Standard? 
• Webinar: Importing 101 – Introduction to U.S. Customs 

For importers seeking to recover duties paid under these tariffs, a proactive legal and compliance strategy is essential. 

A Favorable Ruling ≠ Automatic Refunds 

The Supreme Court’s determination that IEEPA tariffs are unlawful represents a significant legal milestone. However, the decision does not, by itself, create a streamlined or automatic refund mechanism for affected importers. 

On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement a refund process for certain entries that were assessed IEEPA duties. The order contemplated relief to all importers who paid IEEPA duties, stating, “All importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.” However, there is a real question as to whether the court actually has the power to order refunds for importers who have not filed a lawsuit at the CIT. The government is expected to appeal the order. 

On March 6, 2026, the United States filed a declaration from Brandon Lord, Executive Director of the CBP Office of Trade with the CIT. In this declaration, Mr. Lord explained CBP’s plan to refund the IEEPA Tariffs in compliance with the CIT’s order, but also stated that CBP does not currently have the capability to implement this. Subsequently, Judge Eaton suspended his order pending further proceedings and allowing CBP more time to implement the refund process.  

CBP’s Position on Refunds 

CBP’s posture in the litigation makes clear that refunds are not guaranteed for all importers who paid IEEPA tariffs. CBP has highlighted the administrative and logistical challenges of issuing refunds, pointing to the sheer volume of affected entries and the limitations of its current systems. Notably, in a hearing on March 4, 2026, CBP told the CIT “It is not our position that every single entry and every importer will get a refund. Our position is that you have to file a claim in this court which is why over 2,000 companies have filed claims.” 

Entry Timing 

There is also an open question about whether, litigant or not, refunds will be given for liquidated, non-protested entries. Addressing how refunds should be implemented, Judge Eaton’s order directed CBP to eliminate IEEPA duties from unliquidated and entries that are not “finally liquidated” (a process that occurs 90 days after liquidation): 

“With respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.” 

However, the order doesn’t apply to entries that are beyond the 90-day re-liquidation period or  to IEEPA tariffs not at issue in the Supreme Court case, such as the India and Brazil IEEPA tariffs, leaving a gap for how these entries will be treated.  

Below is a liquidation timeline with relevant filing windows. 

What Importers Should Do 

It is likely that the U.S. will file an appeal challenging the scope of the CIT order. In preparing for future refunds, we recommend that all importers take the following steps: 

1. File suit in the CIT  

The President has made it clear that the United States intends to fight the refund process. We are confident that importers who have filed suit in the CIT will be eligible to receive refunds for the IEEPA Tariffs they paid. It is far less clear whether, and how, refunds will be issued for those that do not go to Court.  

We encourage all importers impacted by the IEEPA tariffs to file a court challenge in the CIT. We believe that doing so preserves the right to receive refunds for IEEPA tariffs, and minimizes the risk of having to pursue a long additional post-decision process. 

2. Create an ACE account immediately  

We have recommended for years that companies set up an ACE account, and this has now become even more important. ACE is the primary system for the international trade community to submit import and export data to CBP and other participating government agencies. CBP and the partner government agencies use ACE to collect, track, and process required trade information.   

An ACE account gives importers full visibility into import activity, better data for audit preparation, streamlined communication with CBP, and more. ACE is also the only way for importers to access the ACH application, which must be completed to receive refunds from CBP.  

3. Set up your U.S. bank account in ACE to receive ACH refunds 

CBP published an Interim Final Rule on January 2, 2026, announcing that the agency will issue all refunds electronically (subject to certain exceptions under 31 CFR part 208) effective February 6, 2026. CBP no longer issues any refunds by check, unless a waiver has been approved.  

Importers who are not already enrolled in the ACH Refund program must submit an ACH Refund application through the ACE Portal. As part of the ACH Refund application, all applicants are required to use a U.S. bank account (note that foreign Importers of Record may have an ACE account, but a U.S. bank account must be used for the ACH application). Once an application for ACH Refund is successfully submitted and approved in the ACE Portal, all future refunds will be issued electronically to the designated U.S. bank account. 

There are 330,566 importers who have paid IEEPA duties or duty deposits. While CBP has issued numerous communications regarding the new rule, only 21,423 entities (mostly importers or their customs brokers) have completed the set-up process to receive their refunds electronically. Until importers complete the process to receive refunds electronically, the refunds will be rejected.  

Contact Diaz Trade Law for Assistance with Your Tariff Refund Strategy 

Recovering tariff refunds in the wake of the IEEPA litigation will almost certainly not be automatic, and for many importers, the window to act may be limited. Developing a clear, proactive strategy is critical to preserving and maximizing any potential recovery.   

Diaz Trade Law works closely with importers to evaluate eligibility, identify risks, and pursue the most effective path forward. If your company paid IEEPA duties, now is the time to assess your position and take action to protect your rights. 

Learn more: 

• Why You Need Your Very Own Ace Account 

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful 

• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration 

• Court Orders Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs – NOW Is the Time to File Litigation at the CIT 

• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics 

• Webinar: ACE – Auditing Your Import History 

The CIT Order

In the order, Judge Eaton clearly stated that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT has national jurisdiction and the ability to issue a broad order, that he is the judge to whom all IEEPA refunds have been assigned, and that he views the facts and law as clear. It is not clear whether he is also ordering the refunds for everyone else not in court, which will unquestionably be further litigated. 

We note that in response to written questions from the court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that they were continuing to liquidate entries with IEEPA duties if they were deposited at the time of entry, that they were not issuing refunds, and that they had not issued instructions to liquidate without IEEPA duties. They further stated that any refunds will require a review to determine if there was a violation of other customs laws or if other duties, taxes, and fees were still owed. In other words, CBP intends to conduct detailed reviews of all entries before issuing refunds. The responses provided by CBP to the Judge were reviewed by the Judge and likely resulted in his rather strongly worded order. 

We anticipate a prompt filing of an appeal of this order to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), challenging both the broad nature of the relief and the potential applicability to parties not currently in court. We believe that the CAFC will set an expedited briefing process for this appeal, and we also anticipate that the United States will seek to have this order reviewed by the Supreme Court, but at least with respect to parties in court, this will be a very weak case. 

What Importers Should Do

This order is a significant positive development and strongly suggests that the court is not going to tolerate delays for tariff refunds. Importers in court may receive refunds in a matter of months, if not weeks, rather than years, as desired by the Trump administration.  

We continue to believe that filing litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade is the surest bet to get refunds of IEEPA duties and to get refunds quickly.

Additionally, if you are not currently enrolled in ACE and/or have not set up your ACH Refund, we highly recommend you set up an ACE Account and set up your ACH Refund application through the ACE Portal.  Once an application for ACH Refund is successfully submitted and approved in the ACE Portal, all future refunds will be issued electronically to the designated U.S. bank account.

This is a quickly moving process, and we will keep you abreast as key changes come to light.  

If you have any questions regarding any other import or export-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com. 

Follow our tariffs & trade deals page to keep up with the latest trade news.

Read more:

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful
• Reminder: CBP Now Issues Refunds via ACH Through ACE
• Why You Need Your Own Ace Account
• Tariffs at the Supreme Court!
• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• ICYMI: President Trump Signs America First Trade Policy
• Trump Administration Announces Plan for Reciprocal Tariffs
• New Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China: Key Updates for Importers
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Trump Administration Announces Reciprocal Tariffs

What is the NDC?

The NDC is an FDA standard for uniquely identifying drugs marketed in the U.S. Currently, the NDC assigned by the FDA for each listed drug marketed in the U.S. is a unique 10-digit number and can be in several different formats.

Current formats:

10-digit identifier

The FDA’s standard NDC is a 10-digit numerical identifier that includes a labeler code, product code, and package code.

There are 3 FDA-assigned formats for the standard NDC:

• 4-4-2
• 5-3-2
• 5-4-1

HIPAA Format

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) adopted a uniform 11-digit NDC format that must be used when a HIPAA-covered transaction includes an NDC. This 11-digit format is standardized into a 5-4-2 format and created by adding a leading zero to either the labeler, product, or package code.

Upcoming 6-Digit Format

The FDA will run out of 5-digit labeler codes in 10-15 years. Per FDA regulations (21 CFR 207.33), once the FDA runs out of 5-digit labeler codes, it will start assigning 6-digit labeler codes. Without this proposed change, there would be five NDC formats, 3 in 10- digits and 2 in 11-digits. There may be confusion between an FDA-assigned 11-digit NDC and a HIPAA converted 11-digit NDC.

The New NDC Standard

The Final Rule modifies existing regulations to establish a uniform, 12-digit format that can accommodate longer NDCs once the FDA begins issuing 6-digit labeler codes.

The change will impact a variety of industries and stakeholders, including:

• Human and animal drug manufacturers and distributors
• Drug importers
• Federal agencies using the NDC
• Drug databanks
• Pharmacies
• Hospitals, clinics, labs, healthcare practitioners
• Nursing care facilities
• Electronic health record vendors
• State and local governments
• Various supply chain stakeholders

The rule change standardizes the NDC format across all sectors and minimizes confusion and medication errors.

During the seven years before the rule takes effect (March 5, 2026 – March 6, 2033), the FDA will continue to assign 10-digit NDCs in the current formats. Manufacturers, distributors, repackagers, relabelers, pharmacies, health care providers, payors, and other supply chain partners should use this time to update their systems, processes, and infrastructure to handle the 12-digit NDC format by March 7, 2033.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor developments concerning this proposed rule. We provide guidance on a variety of FDA matters, including food, cosmetics, drugs, alcohol, medical devices, and more.

Learn more about FDA compliance:

• Webinar: Tips on FDA’s Medical Device Registration Process
• FDA Begins Enforcement of DUNS Number Requirement for Food Facility Registrations
• Webinar: Importing Medical Devices in Compliance with U.S. FDA
• Webinar: FDA – Is it a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? Mitigating FDA Enforcement Actions
• Webinar: Detentions, Warning Letters, and Import Alerts: How to Use FDA’s Databases to Perform Due Diligence
• Webinar: Getting MoCRA Compliant

Background on New Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued two Proclamations imposing enhanced import tariffs on steel and aluminum products under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While additional Section 232 tariffs had been in place on certain steel and aluminum products since the first Trump Administration in 2018, the orders eliminated certain exemptions from the tariffs, expanded their scope to cover additional products, and increased the tariffs on covered aluminum goods from 10% to 25%.

On February 18, 2025, two Federal Register Notices were published that included lists of “derivative” steel and aluminum products subject to the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232. The Federal Register Notices, which include the specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classifications for the derivative products in Annex 1, are available here (steel) and here (aluminum). The tariffs were increased from 25% to 50% effective June 4, 2025.1 On August 19, 2025, another Federal Register Notice was published, adding 407 HTSUS classifications to the list of products that will be considered as steel-aluminum derivative products.

Approaches to Valuation

CBP has published FAQs and CSMS messages on steel and aluminum about how to calculate and report the value of the steel and aluminum content of steel and aluminum derivative articles. However, there have been different interpretations of this guidance, including by CBP itself.

The FAQ reads,

“The value of the steel/aluminum content should be determined in accordance with the principles of the Customs Valuation Agreement, as implemented in 19 U.S.C. 1401a. Thus, the value of the steel/aluminum content is the total price paid or payable for that content, which is the total payment (direct or indirect, and exclusive of any costs, charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance, and related services incident to the international shipment of the merchandise from the country of exportation to the country of importation) made/to be made for the steel/aluminum content by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the seller of the steel/aluminum content. Normally, this would be based on the invoice paid by the buyer of the steel/aluminum content to, or for the benefit of, the seller of the steel/aluminum content.”

The CSMS message on steel states that “where the value of the steel content is less than the entered value of the imported article, the good must be reported on two lines.  The first line will represent the non-steel content, while the second line will represent the steel content.” The CSMS message states the same thing for aluminum.

Some importers interpret this guidance to mean that the value of the steel or aluminum content in a derivative product is the price the foreign manufacturer paid for the steel or aluminum. Other importers (and currently CBP’s Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise, in informal guidance) interpret this guidance to mean the value of steel or aluminum based on the price paid for the derivative product by the U.S. importer. CBP has issued Customs Forms 28s and 29s that reflect this interpretation.

CBP has not issued any formal guidance in the form of a customs ruling, additional FAQ, or Cargo System Messaging Service message addressing these different interpretations.

New CIT Case

A lawsuit was recently filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), challenging how CBP has been valuing and applying Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products. 

At the center of the lawsuit is the informal guidance provided by the Base Metals CEE mentioned above. Express Fasteners, Ltd. of Illinois filed the lawsuit, arguing that its imports of screws and fasteners were unlawfully assessed Section 232 steel duties.2 According to the plaintiff, CBP recently began applying 232 duties to the entire U.S. customs value of imported screws and fasteners, which includes machining, fabrication, overhead, the manufacturer’s profit, and other costs.

Express argues that the public Section 232 FAQs limit the 232 tariffs to the value of the steel content of the product, as determined by the value their foreign supplier paid for the steel, and that this change in valuation approach was never published and subjected to rulemaking procedures and is therefore an unlawful and arbitrary departure from established agency guidance. 

What Importers Should Do

Diaz Trade Law recommends taking the more conservative approach reflected in CBP’s most recent, albeit informal, guidance and reporting the steel and aluminum value based on the U.S. customs value of the steel and aluminum, which includes machining, fabrication, overhead, and the manufacturer’s profit. If the article includes non-steel, non-aluminum content such as wood or plastic, we recommend allocating the machining, fabrication, overhead, and profit across the steel/aluminum and non-steel/non-aluminum content in a reasonable manner. We further recommend monitoring the liquidation of affected entries and protesting them within 180 days based on the pending litigation. For importers who choose to report the value of the steel and aluminum based on the value their foreign manufacturer paid for these materials, we urge you to consider filing a prior disclosure to pay the duty difference if the court rules in favor of CBP in the pending Fasteners case. All importers should prioritize proper documentation and recordkeeping, as CBP may ask for detailed breakdowns and supporting analysis at any time.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor for developments and will provide additional information as it becomes available. In the meantime, contact us for assistance with valuation procedures, recordkeeping, staff training, and more. 305-456-3830, info@diaztradelaw.com

Learn more:

• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• Bloomberg Law: CBP Recordkeeping Requirements
• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs
• Bloomberg Law: Bloomberg Law Feature: Responding to CBP Form 28 or 29
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• Webinar: Introduction to Importing

When Customs Issues Cross the Line

Most customs violations start as a civil enforcement matter. Errors involving classification, valuation, country of origin, or admissibility are often addressed through a request for information (CBP 28), notice of action (CBP 29), protest, prior disclosure, or penalty proceeding. However, when patterns emerge or when agencies believe false statements or deliberate schemes are involved, the enforcement posture can change dramatically.

Federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), routinely collaborate to investigate potential criminal violations tied to import activity. These investigations may focus on:

• Undervaluation or misclassification to avoid duties
• False statements or omissions in entry documentation
• Evasion of import restrictions or regulatory requirements
• Coordinated schemes involving suppliers, brokers, or intermediaries

Once criminal intent is suspected, importers may face subpoenas, search warrants, asset seizures, or even criminal charges.

Increased Focus on Enforcement

The recent volatile tariff environment has created increased incentives to cheat the system. The U.S. government has made clear that it is watching closely.

In a May 2025 memo, Matthew Galeotti, head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, named trade and customs fraud as one of the top enforcement priorities in white-collar crime. The DOJ also expanded its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to include customs fraud.

DOJ has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to criminally charge bad actors with customs fraud and has secured indictments and convictions against several importers.

While CBP hasn’t issued a formal enforcement priorities memo like the DOJ, its recent public messaging leaves no room for doubt. In May 2025, the agency warned the pharmaceutical industry that undervaluing goods amounts to trade evasion. Additionally, a LinkedIn post from the agency stated: “CBP targets and combats duty evasion at every level. Make no mistake – bad actors violating U.S. trade law will be identified, investigated, and punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

Learn More: Upcoming Webinar on Customs Enforcement and Criminal Risk

DTL President Jennifer Diaz and Of Counsel Rick Quinn will explore these issues in an upcoming webinar. Join us on February 25 for a live webinar, “Customs & Criminal Law – Case Study: Tobacco.”

This webinar takes a deep dive into the intersection of customs enforcement and criminal law through the lens of a real-world tobacco-related case study. Tobacco imports are subject to some of the most complex, highly regulated, and heavily enforced rules in international trade.

Presenters will discuss:

• Overview of tobacco import regulations and why the product category carries heightened enforcement risk
• How CBP identifies irregularities and the roles of key agencies in enforcement actions
• The escalation pathway from civil customs violations to criminal investigations
• Common compliance failures in tobacco imports and how importers can avoid them
• Strategies for mitigating exposure
• Practical lessons learned for importers and trade professionals handling high-risk commodities

Who should attend?

• Importers
• Manufacturers
• Customs Brokers
• Regulatory Affairs Professionals
• In-house Legal Counsel
• Product Development Managers
• Others interested in FDA

REGISTER HERE.

Read more:

• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• DOJ Targets Trade Fraud: Importers Now on Notice as Criminal Division Ramps Up Enforcement
• Bloomberg Law: What is an Importer’s Reasonable Care Standard?
• Bloomberg Law:  Submitting a Prior Disclosure to CBP
• Webinar: The False Claims Act
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan

Effective, January 21, 2026, importers MUST use the portal to submit the following for review:

• Withhold Release Order/Finding admissibility reviews.
• Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act applicability reviews.
• Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act requests for exception; and
• Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act exception requests.

All detained or excluded shipments requiring review must be submitted through this Portal, and users must have a login.gov account to access it. Depending on the type of review submitted, submission will be reviewed by CBP personnel in Forced Labor Division, or Port of Entry, or the Center of Excellence and Expertise.

Diaz Trade Law has confirmed with CBP that responses to CBP Form 28 (Request for Information) and CBP Form 29 (Notice of Action) should not be submitted through the Forced Labor Portal.

The Portal is available at https://flportal.cbp.gov/s/login/ and CBP has provided an instructional video on how to submit a request here.

This change reflects another step forward in how CBP interacts with the trade community, transitioning from multiple submission pathways to a more centralized, digital platform.

Diaz Trade Law has significant experience in a broad range of import compliance matters including forced labor compliance and enforcement mitigation. For assistance with developing or updating a forced labor compliance plan, forced labor compliance training, or communicating with CBP regarding goods detained by CBP, contact us today at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

Learn more:

• Webinar: Forced Labor – Practical Tips to Secure Your Supply Chain and Comply with Regulatory Requirements
• Bloomberg Law: U.S. Customs Targets the Use of Forced Labor
• UFLPA Guidance: What Importers Need to Know
• Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA): What You Need to Know
• CBP’s Forced Labor Process Flowchart