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 crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, modules, laminates, panels, and building integrated materials.  

The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.42.0010, and 8541.43.0010. Full scope here.

U.S. Import Data of Subject Merchandise  

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 oleoresin paprika from 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. 

The Executive Order (effective July 1, 2025) revoked the following six prior executive orders dating back to 2004:

• Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria),
• Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria)
• Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria)
• Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria)
• Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011 (Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria)
• Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011 (Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria).

The revocation of Executive Order 13338 ended the national emergency that underpinned the subsequent executive orders.

The Executive Order also waived certain sanctions imposed by the Syria Accountability Act and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act.

On June 30, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) took action to implement the executive order by removing 518 previously sanctioned persons and companies from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, restoring their access to U.S. financial systems. 

The U.S. has had sanctions on Syria since 1979, when the U.S. designated it a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. expanded those measures in 2004 over Syria’s military presence in Lebanon and again in 2011 in response to President Bashar Assad’s crackdown on protesters.

Why Now

The revocation of sanctions fulfills a commitment Trump made during a visit to Saudi Arabia in May to lift all sanctions on Syria. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have both pushed for the U.S. to remove the restrictions to facilitate reconstruction after the overthrow of the Assad regime in 2024. The move aligns the U.S. with recent actions by the European Union and the U.K., both of which lifted economic sanctions earlier this year.  

Some Sanctions Still Remain

Some sanctions can only be removed through congressional action. For example, sanctions under the Caesar Act that target individuals, entities, and governments supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad will remain in place. Syria also remains designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, which continues to restrict investment and diplomatic engagement. However, the executive order directed relevant agencies to examine these restrictions and assess what is required to suspend them.  

Targeted sanctions remain in place against Bashar al-Assad, his inner circle, terrorist organizations, and entities linked to drug trafficking, chemical weapons, and Iranian proxies. 

If you have questions on sanctions or export-related matters, contact Diaz Trade Law today at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

Read more:

• Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Sanctions Compliance
• Bloomberg Law: US Sanctions Lists
• ICYMI: Congress Doubles the Statute of Limitations for Sanctions Violations

Both Mexico and the United States have robust legal frameworks to eradicate the use of forced labor and have made great strides in detection and enforcement. However, the secretive nature of the forced labor industry, changing bad actor tactics, and the intensive resourcing required presents challenges to both countries.

Forced Labor in Mexico

While Mexico has made great strides in identifying and preventing forced labor, it is still a problem that impacts hundreds of thousands of citizens. Certain risk factors[3] may make certain individuals more vulnerable to forced labor than others, including:

• Poverty
• Unstable immigration status
• Language barriers
• Lack of social support systems
• Physical or developmental disabilities

An estimated 850,000 people are still living in modern slavery today in Mexico.[4] The Department of Labor has identified a list of goods it has reason to believe are produced using child labor and forced labor in Mexico including[5]:

• Beans
• Cattle
• Chile peppers
• Coffee
• Cucumbers
• Eggplants
• Garments
• Leather goods/accessories
• Melons
• Onions
• Poppies
• Pornography
• Sugarcane
• Tobacco
• Tomatoes

Investigations have also uncovered severe forms of child labor including using children in the production and trafficking of drugs and in dangerous agricultural work.[6]

Mexico Efforts to Eliminate Forced Labor in Mexico

Over the past several years, the Mexican government has both acknowledged the prevalence of forced labor and taken steps to identify it and stop it. The government has amended its labor laws, signed a national pact that establishes nationwide objectives, and committed to transparency and reporting. However, both the Mexican government and international bodies recognize that there is more work to be done.

Mexico has been actively working to combat forced labor, driven by both international commitments and domestic reform initiatives. These efforts are guided by the country’s obligations under the USMCA, the ILO conventions, and Mexico’s own labor law reforms. Below is an overview of Mexico’s approach, recent actions, and the challenges it faces in eliminating forced labor.

1. Labor Law Reforms

Mexico’s comprehensive labor reform, enacted in 2019, introduced protections for workers and mandated independent labor courts to replace corrupt conciliation boards.[7] These reforms include provisions that make it easier to report forced labor practices and give workers the right to unionize and demand fair labor conditions.

 The reform also specifies penalties for employers who engage in exploitative labor practices, including forced labor. These penalties apply across industries and include potential fines and imprisonment for offenders.

2. Commitments under the USMCA

Mexico’s commitments under the USMCA include specific provisions addressing forced labor, as well as a general commitment to uphold internationally recognized labor rights. To avoid trade restrictions or sanctions, Mexican exporters must ensure that their goods are produced under fair labor conditions. The Mexican government collaborates with U.S. and Canadian authorities to address forced labor concerns within specific industries.

Mexican facilities suspected of labor rights violations, including forced labor, can be investigated and required to take corrective actions. Mexico has worked with the U.S. in cases involving the automotive and agricultural sectors, where reports of labor abuses have been more prevalent.

3. Focus on Child Labor

Child labor remains a significant challenge in Mexico. Approximately 3.7 million children aged 5 to 17 are engaged in child labor, with 2 million involved in hazardous work.[8] These children are often found in agriculture, construction, and informal urban economies, where they face significant health and safety risks.

To combat this issue, in 2023, the state secretaries of labor, the Federal Commission for Addressing Child Labor, and state-level commissions signed a national pact (Pacto del Mayab) that established shared objectives to combat child labor and forced labor in Mexico.[9] The federal commission also published a guide for employers on regulation compliance, expectations for general working conditions, and required benefits for working adolescents. The government also publishes a digital handbook informing minors aged15-17 about their working rights.

4. Enforcement and Monitoring

Mexico has taken steps to strengthen the enforcement of labor standards, including measures specifically targeting forced labor. The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) plays a central role in monitoring labor practices, conducting inspections, and enforcing labor laws.

To enhance its efforts, the STPS has increased labor inspections, especially in high-risk sectors such as agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. Inspectors are trained to identify signs of forced labor, such as withholding of wages, restricted movement, and abusive working conditions.

The Mexican government has also increased funding and training for labor inspectors to address forced labor and other labor rights violations more effectively.[10] This includes specific training on identifying and handling cases of forced labor and child labor.

5. International Partnerships and Capacity Building

Mexico collaborates with international organizations and the U.S. to build capacity for identifying and eliminating forced labor. These partnerships provide Mexico with resources and expertise to address forced labor comprehensively.

Mexico works with the ILO to align its labor standards with international guidelines. The ILO provides technical assistance, resources, and training for Mexican officials on forced labor issues.

Mexico also leverages U.S. assistance programs. For example, through the USMCA, the U.S. Department of Labor and USAID support Mexico’s labor reform efforts, including programs that help identify and prevent forced labor.[11] This includes funding for monitoring initiatives, worker education programs, and training for Mexican labor inspectors.

6. Awareness Campaigns and Worker Protections

Public awareness campaigns and legal protections are essential to combating forced labor in Mexico. These initiatives help inform workers about their rights and provide channels for reporting labor abuses.

The Mexican government and labor organizations conduct public campaigns to inform workers of their rights, including protections against forced labor. These campaigns are targeted at vulnerable populations, including migrant and seasonal workers, who are at a higher risk for exploitation.

Mexico has established hotlines[12] and complaint mechanisms for workers to report labor abuses. Workers can anonymously report instances of forced labor, allowing the government to investigate and take action.

Recommendations to Eliminate Forced Labor from Products Imported into the U.S. from Mexico

Mexico has made great strides in taking action to eliminate the use of forced labor. Mexico’s laws are consistent with international standards and Mexico has ratified all key international conventions concerning child labor. However, lack of resourcing for enforcement and coordination as well as limited social programs may hold back the ultimate goal of eliminating forced labor.

A. Enforcement

Additional resourcing could improve Mexico’s enforcement of both in-country labor laws and enforcing laws against the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

1. In-country labor laws

 There are multiple opportunities for Mexico to improve enforcement of its own forced labor laws.

Inspector resourcing

Enforcement of forced labor laws in Mexico continues to be limited by lack of resourcing. Mexico’s STPS would benefit from greater funding and resources to expand the number of labor inspectors, especially in rural and informal sectors where forced labor risks are highest.

Additionally, inspectors could greatly benefit from focused training on identifying forced labor, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing. This training would help inspectors detect abuses more effectively and avoid over- or underenforcement.

Business compliance

Mexico can take action to strengthen compliance and accountability measures for businesses. Requiring companies to perform labor due diligence, similar to standards in the U.S. and the EU, would help reduce forced labor in supply chains. Companies could be required to certify compliance with labor laws, conduct third-party audits, and disclose labor practices in their supply chains.

Mexico could establish tax incentives or other benefits for companies that demonstrate compliance with labor laws and engage in ethical labor practices. Recognizing and rewarding compliant businesses would encourage broader adherence to labor standards.

Stronger Penalties

Mexico could increase penalties for companies and individuals involved in forced labor to act as a stronger deterrent. This might include higher fines and tougher criminal consequences, sending a clear message that force labor will not be tolerated.

2. Trade Enforcement Mechanisms

Mexico could implement a customs-based enforcement tool to block goods produced with forced labor from being exported. This would align Mexico’s enforcement with the U.S. and send a strong message to businesses to comply with labor laws.

Mexico could also consider enhancing penalties for forced labor violations, including significant fines and potential facility closures.

B. Government Policies

Additional policy development is needed to ensure consistency and transparency in the enforcement of forced labor laws.

Inspection Standards & Coordination

The Mexican government can ensure that state-level labor inspectors conduct targeted, routine, and unannounced labor inspections in all sectors. There is also a need for improved coordination and information sharing between federal and state labor inspectors.

Transparency

Mexico’s forced labor enforcement programs would benefit from additional reporting and transparency. Currently, the government does not report information at the state or federal levels on the number of violations uncovered, fines that were collected, prosecutions, or convictions.

Strengthen Unions

Empowering unions can help workers organize and advocate against forced labor practices. Mexico should continue to support unionization efforts in high-risk industries, ensuring that unions are independent and representative.

Training for Law Enforcement

Finally, more resources are needed to ensure that criminal law enforcement agencies are equipped to conduct thorough investigations and prosecute forced labor crimes. Training for law enforcement, investigative teams, and judges is needed.

Expand Partnerships with NGOs and International Organizations

Collaboration with the ILO and local NGOs can help provide additional resources, training, and monitoring in areas where forced labor is prevalent. NGOs can also serve as intermediaries for workers who may be hesitant to report labor abuses directly to the government.

Mandatory Training

Require companies to provide training for employees and suppliers on identifying and mitigating forced labor risks within supply chains.

Mexico should also use the labor standards outlined in the USMCA and other trade agreements to secure technical and financial support from partner countries. This could help further labor reforms and inspection capacity.

C. Social Programs

While Mexico has taken steps to provide resources to victims of forced labor, more can be done to provide education and targeted outreach.

Education Access

Expand access to education for children in vulnerable communities to reduce child labor. Invest in scholarships and school infrastructure in rural areas.

School Coordination

Mexico can ensure that school children are screened for indicators of forced labor and that child victims of forced labor are placed in child protection centers instead of detention centers, with access to social services and education. The government can also provide additional support to migrant, refugee, and internally displaced children to reduce their risk for child labor.

Improve Worker Awareness and Reporting Channels

Targeted awareness campaigns can educate workers about their rights and the illegality of forced labor. Using local languages and accessible communication channels like radio, television, social media, and posters in high-risk regions can help reach vulnerable populations.

Offering more robust anonymous reporting channels, such as hotlines and mobile apps, can encourage workers to report abuses without fear of retaliation. These mechanisms should also connect workers to resources and legal assistance.

Targeted Programs for Vulnerable Populations

Certain populations, such as migrant workers, are at high risk of forced labor, especially in agriculture and construction. Mexico could expand targeted protections, such as access to identification documents, fair wage protections, and the right to change employers.

Mexico could also provide rehabilitative and legal services for forced labor survivors. Survivors can provide insight into labor practices, aiding efforts to identify and dismantle forced labor networks.

Conclusion

Eradicating forced labor from supply chains remains a priority trade issue for the United States. The U.S. government is determined not only to prevent goods made with forced labor from entering the country, but also to stop them from being made in the first place.

As a top trading partner, the U.S. is heavily invested in Mexico’s efforts to eradicate forced labor. In recent years, Mexico has been recognized by international organizations for their improvements in enforcing forced labor laws. The government’s efforts to adopt policies, identify forced labor, and conduct enforcement have brought the country closer to the standards of other developed nations. However, additional work remains to improve the identification of forced labor as well as the consistency of Mexico’s enforcement efforts.

Preventing forced labor requires a unified effort across government institutions, private sectors, and civil society. By strengthening enforcement of labor laws, providing education, and fostering international collaboration, both the U.S. and Mexico can address the root causes of forced labor and ensure bad actors are brought to justice.

As the U.S. and Mexico continue to combat forced labor, the countries have an opportunity to set a powerful example of commitment and cooperation to human rights on the global stage.

[1] International Labour Organization. Forced labour, modern slavery and trafficking in persons.

https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/forced-labour-modern-slavery-and-trafficking-persons

[2] Id.

[3] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. What is Forced Labor?  https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/forced-labor

[4] Walk Free. The Global Slavery Index. (2023) https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2023/05/17114737/Global-Slavery-Index-2023.pdf

[5] U.S. Department of Labor. 2024 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. (2024) https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ilab/child_labor_reports/tda2023/2024-tvpra-list-of-goods.pdf

[6] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs. Child Labor and Forced Labor Reports (2023). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/mexico

[7] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Building an Independent & Democratic Labor Movement to Protect Worker Rights in Mexico. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/building-independent-democratic-labor-movement-protect-worker-rights-mexico

[8] International Labour Organization, Child Labour- Facts and Figures in the world. https://www.ilo.org/projects-and-partnerships/projects/child-labour

[9] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Child Labor and Forced Labor Reports.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/mexico

[10] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Strengthening Mexican Inspectorate for Forced Labor Enforcement (CAMINOS). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/strengthening-mexican-inspectorate-labor-enforcement-caminos

[11] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Labor Rights and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade/labor-rights-usmca

[12] Contratados, Binational Anti-Trafficking Hotline Launched to Combat Human Trafficking.

https://contratados.org/es/node/35331

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 animal feed grade L-lysine. Lysine is an essential amino acid added to animal feed that is used in biosynthesis of proteins. 

The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 2922.41.0090. 

Full scope here. 

U.S. Imports of Subject Merchandise from China  

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 L-lysine 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. 

According to the joint statement, China will lower the tariff on American imports to 10% for 90 days beginning May 14, 2025. The U.S. will simultaneously lower the China specific 125% Reciprocal Tariff to 10% for 90 days beginning May 14, 2025. Currently, the U.S. has imposed a 10% IEEPA Reciprocal Tariff on all imports, except USMCA qualified goods. The Geneva negotiation essentially put China, U.S.’s third largest trading partner, in line with all other countries. However, other duties will continue to apply to Chinese imports, including Section 301 Tariff, Section 232 Tariff, and the IEEPA Fentanyl Tariff. Nonetheless, this weekend negotiation drastically lower tariff on Chinese import by 115%, a significant move since President Trump’s Liberation Day.  

CBP subsequently issued guidance implementing the 90-day suspension. View CSMS here.

Read more:

• 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
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• 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

New Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China

On February 1, 2025, President Trump first issued a fact sheet and thereafter signed three executive orders imposing new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China:

• 25% tariff on imports from Canada
• 25% tariff on imports from Mexico
• 10% tariff on imports from China

The tariffs on imports from China went into effect February 4, 2025. The tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico were initially set to take effect February 4, 2025, but were delayed by one month following commitments made by both countries to secure the border and stop the flow of drugs into the United States.

In a Truth Social post on February 27, President Trump confirmed that the tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods will go into effect on March 4. He also announced that China will face an additional 10% tariff starting March 4.

On March 3, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order increasing tariffs on imports from China from 10% to 20%. The Federal Register Notice for China can be found here.

On March 5, 2025, the Administration announced a temporary one-month pause on automobile tariffs for Mexico and Canada. Subsequently, on March 6, 2025, President Trump temporarily suspended tariffs on certain goods from Canada and Mexico that meet the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) requirements, effective March 7, 2025. The Federal Register Notice for Canada can be found here, the Federal Register Notice for Mexico can be found here. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued guidance on the additional tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and China. The official CBP statement can be accessed here.

On March 11, 2025, two Federal Register Notices were issued, amending the Notice of Implementation of Additional Duties on Products of Mexico Pursuant to Executive Order 14194 and the Notice of Implementation of Additional Duties on Products of Canada Pursuant to Executive Order 14193. These Federal Register amendments notices can be accessed [here for Mexico] and [here for Canada]. Both notices reduced the duty on potash from 25% to 10%.

Energy resources from Canada will have a lower 10% tariff. The orders ended duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321 for products from China subject to these additional tariffs. However, President Trump signed a subsequent Executive Order pausing the suspension of de minimis treatment. President Trump also signed two executive orders preserving de minimis treatment for Canada and Mexico until “adequate systems are in place” collect tariff revenue from these shipments.

Tariffs will be on top of any other in place (301, 232, ADD, etc.)

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued guidance on the additional tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico. CBP also issued guidance on the processing of de minimis shipments, available here. 

The Administration said the tariffs are aimed at curbing the flow of undocumented immigrants and drugs into the U.S. The White House Fact Sheet said the tariffs will hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping fentanyl and other drugs from flowing across the border. The tariffs will remain in effect “until the crisis is alleviated.”

Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued two Proclamations imposing enhanced import duties on steel and aluminum products under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The orders eliminate certain exemptions from the duties, expand their scope to cover additional products, and raise the duties on covered aluminum goods from 10% to 25%.

On February 18, 2025, two Federal Register Notices were published that included lists of “derivative” products subject to the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232. The Federal Register Notices, which include the specific HTS subheadings for the derivative products in Annex 1 are available here (steel) and here (aluminum). The Federal Register Notices implementing the enhanced import duties are available here (steel) and here (aluminum).

On March 3, 2025, the Department of Commerce released an unpublished Federal Register notice on the Implementation of Duties on Steel pursuant to Proclamation 10896, adjusting imports of steel into the United States, and an unpublished Federal Register notice on the Implementation of Duties on Aluminum pursuant to Proclamation 10895, adjusting imports of aluminum into the United States. Both are scheduled for official publication on March 6, 2025. The notices are available here (steel) and here (aluminum). In accordance with the notices, the additional 25% tariffs on the steel derivative products that fall under Chapter 73 that are listed in Annex 1 to the February 18 Federal Register Notice and on the aluminum derivative products that fall under Chapter 76 will of Annex 1 to the February 19 Federal Register Notice will begin March 12. Derivatives listed in these annexes that fall outside Chapters 73 and 76 will begin upon public notification by the Secretary of Commerce that adequate systems are in place to collect the additional tariffs.

Also as of March 12, 2025:

• Additional Section 232 tariffs of 25% will apply to covered aluminum and steel products from all countries. This means that countries that previously had certain exemptions from the 232 tariffs such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom will also be subject to the 25% tariffs.
• Imports of derivative aluminum articles that contain “any amount of primary aluminum used in the manufacture of the derivative aluminum articles is smelted in Russia, or the derivative aluminum articles are cast in Russia,” are subject to a duty of 200%.
• Newly added HTSUS codes in Chapters 73 and 76 will be subject to tariffs under subheadings 9903.85.07 and 9903.81.90.
  • HTSUS Changes:
    • 19 new subheadings for aluminum derivatives under Chapter 76.
    • 157 new subheadings for steel derivatives under Chapter 73.

New subheadings will be used to differentiate between newly covered and previously covered products:

• 9903.85.02 – will be used for increased and expanded tariffs on aluminum, which are now set at 25% and will now also apply to Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, the EU and the U.K., all of which previously had deals to avoid the tariff
• 9903.81.87 – will be used for Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel, including for goods that were previously subject to Section 232 steel tariffs (except for those on derivatives), as well as newly subject goods from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, the U.K., Ukraine and the EU that are no longer exempt or eligible for quota.
• 9903.85.04 – will be used for the previously existing list of aluminum derivatives
• 9903.81.89 – will be used for previously tariffed steel derivatives.
• 9903.81.88 & 9903.81.93 – will apply the tariffs on steel and steel derivatives admitted to a foreign-trade zone prior to March 12 under privileged foreign status.
• 9903.81.92 & 9903.85.09 – Newly tariffed derivatives exempt from tariffs because the steel was melted and poured in the U.S. or the aluminum was smelted and cast in the U.S.

USTR Requests Comments on Unfair Trade Practices and Non-Reciprocal Trade Arrangements

On February 25, 2025, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a Federal Register Notice seeking comments from the public to assist USTR in reviewing and identifying any unfair trade practices by other countries, and in initiating all necessary actions to investigate the harm to the United States from any non-reciprocal trade arrangements.

USTR was directed to initiate the unfair trade practices and non-reciprocal trade arrangements proceeding under the America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum and the Presidential Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs.

The Federal Register Notice invites any interested party to provide information relating to any unfair trade practice by a foreign country or economy or with respect to a non-reciprocal trade arrangement.

The notice stated that unfair trade practices may include a wide range of practices, such as policies, measures, or barriers that undermine or harm U.S. production or exports. Unfair practices may also include failure by a country to take action to address a non-market policy or practice in a way which harms the United States.

USTR is particularly interested in information related to the largest trading economies, such as G20 countries, as well as economies that have the largest trade deficits with the United States. Comments are due March 11, 2025.

232 Investigations

On February 25 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to initiate an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to determine whether imports of copper threaten to impair U.S. national security.

On March 1, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to initiate an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to determine whether imports of timber, lumber and their derivative products threaten to impair U.S. national security.

Within 270 days of the issuance of the orders, the Secretary must submit the findings of the investigations along with recommendations on actions to mitigate such threats. Recommendations may include tariffs, export controls, or incentives to increase domestic production.

What Importers Should Do

While these tariff increases and changing trade policies will undoubtedly have a significant impact on any business involved in importing goods into the U.S., importers are not without options.

Now is the time importers should audit their operations and compliance program and ensure they are operating in the most efficient way possible. There are also several ways to legally minimize tariffs including:

• Duty Drawback
• Tariff Engineering
• Country of Origin Change
• First Sale
• Duty Deferral
• Negotiate DDP Incoterm

Importers exploring options to minimize tariff liability should always work with an expert to ensure they continue to meet all U.S. Customs regulations. Duty evasion is a serious crime and can result in serious monetary penalties or even prison time in the case of fraud.

At Diaz Trade Law, we have a strong track record in tariff minimization and customs compliance.  To learn more about how we can help, contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

Learn more:

• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges, Mitigation Tools and Tactics
• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• Webinar: Introduction to Importing

On February 18, 2025, two Federal Register Notices were published that included lists of “derivative” products subject to the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232. The Federal Register Notices, which include the specific HTS subheadings for the derivative products in Annex 1 are available here (steel) and here (aluminum).

As of March 12, 2025, additional Section 232 tariffs of 25% will apply to covered aluminum and steel products from all countries. This means that countries that previously had certain exemptions from the 232 tariffs such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom will also be subject to the 25% tariffs. Imports of derivative aluminum articles that contain “any amount of primary aluminum used in the manufacture of the derivative aluminum articles is smelted in Russia, or the derivative aluminum articles are cast in Russia,” are subject to a duty of 200%.

In addition, the additional 25% tariffs will apply to the lists of aluminum and steel derivatives identified in the annexes to the Federal Register Notices once the U.S. Department of Commerce certifies that “adequate systems are in place to fully, efficiently, and expediently process and collect tariff revenue for covered articles.”

Foreign trade zones and Drawback

Derivative steel and aluminum articles admitted into a U.S. Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) after March 12, 2025, must be admitted as “privileged foreign status” (unless eligible for “domestic status”) and will be subject to the additional duties upon entry for consumption into the United States. Importers cannot reclaim these duties under the duty drawback program.

Exclusions

As of February 19, 2025, no new exclusions or exemptions have been announced. If an importer has an existing product-specific, importer-specific product exclusion for steel or aluminum products, the exclusion will remain effective until the expiration date or until their excluded volume is exhausted, whichever occurs first. The current general approved exclusions will lapse on March 12, 2025, and will not be renewed.

The proclamation establishes an exclusion for derivative steel products processed in another country if they originate from steel articles that were melted and poured in the U.S. and for derivative aluminum products processed in another country if they originate from aluminum articles that were smelted and cast in the U.S.

Authority & Rationale

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the president to impose import restrictions based on an investigation and affirmative determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce that certain imports threaten to impair U.S. national security. Commerce conducted investigations and released a report in February 2018 finding that excessive steel and aluminum imports had weakened the domestic industries, reducing their ability to meet national defense and critical infrastructure needs.

In response to this report, the first Trump Administration imposed a 10% tariff on aluminum and 25% tariff on steel imports in March 2018. The proclamation states that despite this action, aluminum imports into the United States have continued at unacceptable levels. As a result, domestic producers have been forced to idle additional production and shut down facilities. The proclamation states that this action is necessary to allow U.S. aluminum producers to restart production and to incentivize new capacity.

Next Steps

The proclamation directs several departments and agencies to take action to implement the policy:

• Within 90 days, Commerce must establish a process allowing U.S. steel and aluminum producers to request the inclusion of additional derivative products under these tariffs.
• Within 10 days, the United States International Trade Commission shall revise the HTSUS to reflect the new policy.
• The Secretary shall take all actions, including publication in the Federal Register, necessary to terminate the product exclusion process.
• CBP is directed to publish regulations or guidance implementing the requirements as soon as practicable.
• CBP is directed to promptly notify Commerce if it finds evidence of any efforts to evade payment of the additional duties.
• The Secretary may issue regulations and guidance to address operational necessity.

In addition, going forward, importers must provide steel and aluminum content information for derivative steel articles to U.S. Customs. CBP will prioritize the review of product classification for imported steel and aluminum articles. If misclassification is detected, maximum penalties will be imposed, with no consideration for mitigating factors.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor for developments and will provide additional information as it becomes available.

Learn more:

• New Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China: Key Updates for Importers
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• Webinar: Introduction to Importing

• 25% tariff on imports from Canada will take effect at least 30 days from Feb. 4, 2025.
• 25% tariff on imports from Mexico are now scheduled to take effect on March 4, 2025. 
• 10% tariff on imports from China will take effect on February 4, 2025. 

In a Truth Social post on February 27, President Trump confirmed that the tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods will go into effect on March 4. He also announced that China will face an additional 10% tariff starting March 4.

Energy resources from Canada will have a lower 10% tariff. The orders ended duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321 for products from China subject to these additional tariffs. However, President Trump signed a subsequent executive order pausing the suspension of de minimis treatment.

Tariffs will be on top of any other in place (301, 232, ADD, etc.) The Federal Register Notice for Canada can be found here and the Federal Register Notice for China can be found here. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued guidance on the additional tariffs on imports from China and Canada which can be found here and  here. CBP also issued guidance on the processing of de minimis shipments, available here.

Policy Rationale & International Response 

The Administration said the tariffs are aimed at curbing the flow of undocumented immigrants and drugs into the U.S. The White House Fact Sheet said the tariffs will hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping fentanyl and other drugs from flowing across the border. The tariffs will remain in effect “until the crisis is alleviated.” 

Canada and China immediately vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs and countermeasures. Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced tariffs starting at 25 percent on approximately $30 billion worth of U.S. goods, with $85 billion more to follow within three weeks. China announced it would implement a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery and large-engine cars, as well as a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas. China’s commerce ministry also said they would file a case against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization.

Following a meeting between President Trump and Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum, tariffs on Mexico will be paused for one month. Sheinbaum vowed to immediately reinforce Mexico’s northern border with 10,000 National Guard soldiers to curb drug trafficking from Mexico to the U.S. Following a meeting between President Trump and Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, tariffs on Canada will be paused for one month. Trudeau announced Canada will implement their $1.3 billion border plan which includes reinforcing the border and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. CBP subsequently issued issued guidance pausing the application of additional duties on imports from Canada.

What Importers Should Do: 

While these increases will undoubtedly have a significant impact on any business involved in importing goods into the U.S. from these countries, importers are not without options.

Now is the time importers should audit their operations and compliance program and ensure they are operating in the most efficient way possible. There are also several ways to legally minimize tariffs. 

Duty Drawback 

If you import products into the U.S. only to export them to another country, you may be entitled to compensation for the duties paid upon importation to the U.S. Duty Drawback provides for the refund of up to 99% for certain duties, internal revenue taxes, and fees collected by CBP upon importation. The drawback may be granted only after the subjected item(s) have been either exported or destroyed (under CBP supervision). Note: importers may not utilize duty drawbacks to mitigate the new tariffs discussed above. 

Tariff Engineering 

Tariff engineering involves altering the condition of a good before it is imported so that it is legally classified under a favorable Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS) classification to benefit from a lower duty rate. Since CBP can only levy tariffs based on the condition of goods at the time of importation, tariff engineering gives importers the opportunity to redefine their imported products and pay lower duties. 

Country of Origin Change 

While potentially costly to initially relocate, changing the country of origin will allow you to import the exact same item(s) without paying the additional duties. If considering this option, one must be cognizant of the list of nations that have a free-trade agreement with the United States. Even though another nation may not be subjected to substantial duties, shifting your supply chain to a nation that has a formal, free and fair-trade agreement with the U.S. ensures accountability and reliability. 

Per the “America First Trade Policy” memorandum issued by the White House on January 20, 2025, all free trade agreements are under review by the United States Trade Representative, with a report expected by April 1, 2025. 

First Sale 

First Sale is a system that decreases the dutiable value of imported goods by authorizing importers to use the price paid in the first sale.  It allows an earlier sale to be used in declaring customs value as long as that sale can be documented as a sale for exportation to the United States and the importer meets all other Customs requirements. 

Consequently, that equivalent value is assigned according to the transaction between the manufacturer and the middleman, not between the middleman and the new buyer. 

Duty Deferral 

If an importer cannot lower the tariff burden, they can consider deferring the cost of duties through Foreign Trade Zones and/or Bonded Warehouses. Note: importers may not utilize foreign trade zones to defer the recently imposed tariffs discussed above.  

Foreign Trade Zones 

Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs), although technically within the geographic limits of the U.S., are secured areas considered outside U.S. Customs territory. Foreign and domestic merchandise may be admitted into an FTZ for operations such as storage, exhibition, assembly, manufacture, redistribution, processing, and more. FTZs allow users to defer, reduce, or eliminate Customs duties. Prior to any manipulation or manufacture of merchandise, which would change its tariff classification, importers may also apply for merchandise in the zone to be given privileged foreign status. Merchandise with privileged foreign status is classified and appraised and duties and taxes are determined as of the date the application is filed. 

Bonded Warehouse 

Unlike FTZs, bonded warehouses are within U.S. customs territory. A customs-bonded warehouse is a secured area in which imported merchandise may be stored without payment of duty for up to 5 years. 

Importers may repackage, sort, or label imports at these locations under the supervision of U.S. customs officials. Manipulation of merchandise is generally prohibited unless approved by U.S. Customs. 

Negotiate DDP Incoterm 

International commercial terms (“Incoterms”) are published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) as a commitment to facilitate international trade and promote open markets. The ICC developed Incoterms to provide a common language for traders and to establish a global system of rules to govern trade. Incoterms are not law, and instead are designed to prevent confusion between global traders by clarifying contract obligations of buyers and sellers. 

Negotiating Incoterms with partners is another way to minimize import costs. Importers should review their contracts and negotiate a “delivery duty paid” (DDP) incoterm. DDP terms place the responsibility (including export and import clearance, transport costs, import duties, and packaging costs) for the delivery of goods on the seller. The seller acts as the importer of record and has the ability to deduct costs like freight, duty, and insurance from the dutiable value. Another advantage of the DDP term is that, if properly structured, it can reduce the total impact of the tariffs.  

Proceed with Caution When Attempting to Minimize Tariffs 

Importers exploring options to minimize tariff liability should always work with an expert to ensure they continue to meet all U.S. Customs regulations. Duty evasion is a serious crime and can result in serious monetary penalties or even prison time in the case of fraud. 

At Diaz Trade Law, we have a strong track record in tariff minimization and customs compliance.  To learn more about how we can help, contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830. 

Learn more: 

• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics 
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success 
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan 
• Webinar: Introduction to Importing 

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 product is generally described as: active anode material is most commonly used as the primary component in the anode of lithium-ion batteries. The anode of a lithium-ion battery must be made with active anode material, often combined with silicon. In contrast, the cathode of lithium-ion batteries can be made from a variety of metal oxides, including lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, or lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide.

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 active anode material 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 product is generally described as: Erythritol, which is a sugar alcohol, commonly referred to as a polyol, typically produced by the fermentation of glucose using

enzymes and yeast or yeast-like fungi (though the scope includes erythritol produced using

any other feedstock or organism). Erythritol typically appears as a white crystalline, odorless product that rapidly dissolves in water. While erythritol is typically produced in the crystalline form or as a fine powder or in directly compressible form, the scope of these investigations covers all physical forms and grades of erythritol.

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 Erythritol 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.