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. 

Full list of exporters here. 

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are 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. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. 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 large diameter graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter exceeding 425 millimeters (16.7 inches), and whether or not attached to a graphite pin joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. 

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 8545.11.0020, 3801.10.5090, and 3801.90.0050.     

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 large diameter graphite electrodes from China and India to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD/CVD 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. 

Full list of importers and exporters here. 

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are 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. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. 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 truck bed covers, which are protective shields made of aluminum, fiberglass, carbon fiber, plastic, and/or water-resistant fabric that are seized to span the open-top area of a pickup truck.   

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheading: 8708.29.5160.    

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 truck bed covers from China to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD/CVD 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. 

Full list of exporters here.

Full list of importers here.

Background on AD/CVD Investigations

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are 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. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. 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 certain fatty acids, which are organic acids made of a hydrocarbon chain with a carboxylic acid group attached to an R-group, with an iodine value below 105g/100g and with a ratio of free fatty acids to triglycerides of at least 97%.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 2915.70.01.20, 2915.70.01.50, 2915.90.10.50, 2916.15.10.00, 2916.15.51.00, 3823.11.00.00, 3823.12.00.00, 3823.19.20.00, 3823.19.40.00, 2915.70.01.10, and 2915.90.10.10.

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 fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage.

AD/CVD 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.

Full list of producers here. 

Full list of importers here.   

Background on AD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) investigations are 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 fresh and chilled winter strawberries harvested or entered during the period October 1 through March 31.  

The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 0810.10.4040 and 0810.10.4080.  

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 fresh winter strawberries from Mexico to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD/CVD 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. 

The Advisory follows President Trump’s Executive Order on June 30, 2025, formally removing U.S. sanctions on Syria and directing agencies to take additional measures to encourage U.S. private sector and foreign partner reengagement in Syria.

New Opportunities & Remaining Restrictions

The Advisory outlines what business with Syria is now permissible as well as what restrictions remain.

Permissible Business:

• The United States no longer imposes comprehensive sanctions on Syria. 
• The Caesar Act is suspended, except for sanctionable transactions with Russia and Iran.
• The transfer of most basic civilian use U.S.-origin goods, as well as software and technology, to or within Syria is permitted without a license. 

Remaining Restrictions:

• Sanctions remain on “the worst of the worst:” Bashar al-Assad and his associates, human rights abusers, drug traffickers, and other destabilizing regional actors.
• The U.S. Government continues to review Syria’s State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) designation. 
• Most Commerce Control List items going to Syria still require a U.S. export license.

What Exporters Should Do

The removal of Syria sanctions and the easing of export-control requirements open up new opportunities for exporters who have avoided the market to comply with U.S. law. However, exporters should proceed with caution and ensure they conduct thorough due diligence before engaging in any business in Syria. 

While sanctions have largely been lifted, certain sanctions remain in effect for individuals and entities related to Bashar al-Assad and his affiliates. Exporters should also be mindful of the historic links between Syrian entities and Iran. Due diligence should address potential sanctions issues with indirect relationships with Iran or Iranian entities. 

Before conducting business with Syria, exporters should consult legal counsel to ensure proper due diligence is conducted. Violations of export control laws carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can face steep penalties, lose their export privileges, and even be imprisoned for violating U.S. export control laws. 

A key foundation of proactive and effective export compliance requires the development of an export compliance plan, which establishes procedures for your organization, including how to identify violations and what to do when violations occur. 

Diaz Trade Law helps exporters create export compliance manuals, audit existing compliance plans, and conduct internal compliance training. Get in touch with us today to learn more about how this Advisory may impact your business. 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com

Learn more:

• Bloomberg Law: Building & Maintaining an Effective Export Compliance Plan
• Bloomberg Law: Export Licensing Under EAR
• Bloomberg Law: Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to OFAC
• Webinar: Introduction to Export Controls
• The Importance of Regular Export Compliance Training for Your Business
• ICYMI: President Trump Lifts Syria Sanctions

Full list of exporters here. 

Full list of importers here.  

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are 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. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. 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 van-type trailers and subassemblies thereof, whether finished or unfinished.  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 8716.39.0040, 8716.90.5060, 7308.30.5050, 7308.90.9590, 7326.90.8688, 8708.29.1500, 9708.99.8180, and 8716.90.5010.  

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 van-type trailers and subassemblies thereof to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD/CVD 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. 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Vehicle Parts

On September 25, 2025, President Trump, via Truth Social, announced his intention to impose a 25% tariff on heavy trucks. On October 17, 2025, he issued a Presidential Proclamation formalizing and clarifying these tariffs. The proclamation imposes a 25% tariff on imports of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and truck parts. This includes Class 3 to Class 8 vehicles, like large pick-up trucks, moving trucks, cargo trucks, dump trucks, and tractors for eighteen-wheelers. 

The Proclamation also imposes a 10% tariff on imports of buses, including school buses, transit buses, and motor coaches. The tariffs are set to take effect on November 1, 2025.

President Trump is imposing the new tariffs under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national security concerns.

If medium and heavy-duty vehicles qualify for USMCA treatment, the importer may submit documentation to identify the amount of U.S. content, and, after the Department of Commerce’s approval, the 25% Section 232 Tariff will only apply to non-U.S. content.  

Timber & Lumber

On September 29, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation imposing a Section 232 Tariff on timber and lumber and their derivative products. Effective October 14, 2025, timber and lumber are subject to a 10% duty, upholstered wooden products are subject to a 25% duty, and kitchen cabinets and vanities are subject to a 25% duty. 

If no agreement can be reached between the U.S. and foreign governments, beginning January 1, 2026, the duty for upholstered wooden products and kitchen cabinets and vanities will increase to  30% and 50%, respectively.  

The proclamation specifically included that goods subject to (1) IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, (2) IEEPA additional tariff on Brazil, and (3) IEEPA Russian oil tariff are not subject to this Section 232 Tariff. Unlike the other Section 232 Tariffs, duty drawback is available for this tariff.  

232 Exclusions – Steel & Aluminum

On October 7, the Bureau of Industry and Security  (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce released 95 inclusion requests for the Section 232 Tariff on Steel and Aluminum and their Derivative Products. Interested parties filed the inclusion requests in response to BIS’s Notice of the Opening of the Section 232 Inclusions Process published on September 17, 2025. 

The release of the 95 inclusion requests started a two-week comment period for the potential inclusions that closed October 21, 2025. BIS will now consider the comments filed and make a final determination in the coming weeks. During the last inclusion process, BIS added 407 of the 467 requested HTS to the Section 232 Tariff on Steel and Aluminum.  

Vessel Fees

On October 3, 2025, CBP published guidance implementing the Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors, which was published on April 12, 2025, and amended on June 12, 2025. This Section 301 Investigation imposes new fees for vessels owned, operated, or built in China and for all foreign-built vehicle carrier vessels. 

Service fees on Chinese vessel operators and owners began on October 14, 2025, at $50 per net ton. There will be three subsequent fee increases: $80 beginning April 17, 2026; $110 beginning April 17, 2027; and $140 beginning April 17, 2028.

The fee will be charged up to five times per year, per vessel. 

CBP noted that the determination of whether the new fees apply to a vessel relies on the operator, not CBP.  

Tariffs and import, and export regulations are changing overnight, literally! Diaz Trade Law can help you keep up. For assistance in understanding how these tariffs may impact your business, get in touch with us today at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

Learn more:

• Courts Say Trump Tariffs are Unlawful, Now What?
• 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
• Breaking Trade News: 10% Tariff, NTE Report, CIT Settlement
• Trump Administration Announces Reciprocal Tariffs
• The Latest on Tariffs, Key Information for Importers – Automobile and Venezuela Oil Update

On September 30, 2025, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released an interim rule regarding “Affiliates.” Under the rule, any entity that is at least 50% owned by one or more entities on the Entity List or the Military End-User (MEU) List will itself automatically be subject to Entity List/MEU restrictions. This is a significant change from the current standard, which excludes entities that are not specifically included on the Entity List or MEU List, regardless of any affiliation with Entity List or MEU List organizations. 

This rule is effective September 29, 2025.

Entity, MEU List Background

The Entity List identifies persons (including businesses, research institutions, government and private organizations, individuals, and other types of legal persons) reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These persons are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, and/or transfer (in-country) of specified items.  

BIS first published the Entity List in 1997. Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests.

The current Entity List can be found in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) here.

Military End-User List is a list of foreign entities, including military services, intelligence organizations, and other entities supporting military uses, for which a license is required to export, reexport, or transfer U.S. goods and technology.

The current MEU list can be found in Supplement No. 7 to Part 744 of the EAR here.

The New Affiliates Rule

The new rule aims to crack down on listed parties acquiring U.S. goods through unlisted subsidiaries. The rule follows the same parameters as the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) 50% rule. Both direct and indirect ownership count toward the 50% threshold. In addition, the threshold applies in the aggregate; if an entity has multiple parent companies on the Entity List or MEU List, the ownership stakes will be added together. 

Red Flag 29

In addition to establishing the 50% affiliate threshold, the rule also establishes a new red flag. Going forward, if an exporter knows that a foreign entity is owned in part by listed parties, they must determine the ownership percentage. Where ownership cannot be verified, exporters have an affirmative duty to secure a BIS license before moving forward with a transaction.

Impact

According to a recent analysis by Kharon, the rule will cover thousands of additional subsidiaries. Russia and China account for the majority of these new subsidiaries. However, entities in the EU, UK, Singapore, Australia, and India will also be impacted. 

Exporters will face immediate restrictions or licensing as a result of this rule and have significant new due diligence and compliance obligations. 

In the notice, BIS emphasized that the new rule creates an “affirmative duty” to determine the ownership of parties in a transaction. Many exporters will need to develop new ownership screening to comply with this requirement.

A key foundation of proactive and effective export compliance requires the development of an export compliance plan. Diaz Trade Law can help exporters develop and refine their compliance plans to minimize the risk of violations. We assist with export compliance training, transaction vetting, requesting licensing, voluntary self-disclosures, and more. Get in touch with us today to learn more about how these new requirements may impact your business – 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

Read more:

• Webinar: Introduction to Export Controls 
• The Importance of Regular Export Compliance Training for Your Business
• Bloomberg Law: Submitting Voluntary Self-Disclosures to Bureau of Industry & Security
• Bloomberg Law: Building & Maintaining an Export Compliance Plan
• Bloomberg Law: Export Licensing Under EAR
• Bloomberg Law: Introduction to U.S. Export Controls

Full list of exporters here. 

Full list of importers here.  

Full list of census data here.  

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are 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. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. 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 chromium trioxide (Chemical Abstracts Services (“CAS”) registry number 133-82-0), regardless of form (dry or solution).  

The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 2819.10.0000.  

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 Chromium Trioxide from India and Turkey to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD/CVD 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.