Published by M. E. Dey & Co. News, February 21, 2026

What Did the Supreme Court Rule?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.

The case centered on President Trump’s use of IEEPA to implement broad tariffs on multiple countries, including so-called “reciprocal” tariffs and additional levies tied to concerns over trade imbalances and fentanyl trafficking. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs. The majority concluded that the statute does not provide clear congressional authorization for such action and that no previous president had used the law to implement duties.

The ruling affirms a lower court decision that found the administration exceeded its authority under IEEPA. However, the Supreme Court did not resolve all related legal issues. It left questions about remedies and implementation to the lower courts, particularly the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), which is expected to determine next steps.

In short, the Court struck down tariffs imposed specifically under IEEPA, but it did not prohibit the use of other trade authorities.

The Section 301 tariffs imposed on China and the Section 232 tariffs for auto, steel, aluminum and copper, all of which Trump imposed, are all still valid and not impacted by this ruling.  
What Tools Does the Trump Administration Still Have to Impose Tariffs?

Although IEEPA is no longer available as a basis for tariffs, several alternative statutory tools remain, and President Trump has made it clear that he intends to use them:

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974

This provision allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days without a lengthy investigation process. It can be used immediately, but tariffs beyond the 150-day window would require congressional approval. President Trump has indicated he would use this authority to implement a 10% global tariff on 2/20 and has already increased it to the maximum 15% on 2/21. The temporary import duty will take effect on February 24 at 12:01 a.m. ET.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930

This statute allows tariffs of up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against U.S. commerce. While powerful, it is more targeted and less sweeping than the IEEPA-based tariffs that were invalidated.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act

This authority allows tariffs based on national security concerns (e.g., steel and aluminum). However, it requires investigations and formal findings before duties can be imposed, making it slower and more procedural.

Trade Investigations and Negotiated Measures

The administration can also initiate new trade investigations under existing trade statutes like Section 301. These processes typically require study, public comment, and agency review before tariffs are applied.

Key Limitation:

None of these tools are as broad or as immediately expansive as IEEPA. Most require procedural steps, investigations, or time limitations. As a result, there may be gaps in timing or scope compared to the tariffs that were struck down. The main difference is that Trump cannot act without approval, and if our government checks and balances are in place, we can hope that additional tariffs will not be frivolously applied. 

Is There a Refund Process for Companies That Paid IEEPA Tariffs?

At this stage, there is no defined refund process.

The Supreme Court did not address whether importers must be refunded tariffs previously collected under IEEPA. Over the past year, those tariffs are estimated to have generated at least $160 billion in revenue.

The issue of refunds is expected to be addressed by the U.S. Court of International Trade. That court is currently handling numerous cases filed by companies seeking repayment. It remains unclear:

• Whether refunds will be automatic or require individual claims
• Whether cases will be consolidated
• How repayment would be structured
• Whether any replacement tariffs could be imposed retroactively

Legal experts have warned that any refund process could be complex, particularly since many importers have already passed costs along to customers.

Until the Court of International Trade provides guidance, businesses remain in a holding pattern regarding both repayment and future tariff exposure.

Bottom Line for Importers and Logistics Companies

• Tariffs imposed under IEEPA have been struck down.
• The administration retains other legal avenues to impose tariffs, but they are narrower or time-limited.
• Refunds are possible but not yet defined.  
• Further litigation and regulatory guidance are expected.

We do not yet have clarity on effective dates, collection pauses, or potential refund mechanics. Businesses should monitor developments closely as the lower courts determine implementation details.

---

January 12, 2026 –

The Madison International Trade Association is proud to welcome Sarah Azar, Ira
Frydman, and James Vanderloo to its board of directors. The newly elected members
will serve a three-year term on the MITA Board of Directors starting January 1, 2026.

Sarah Azar joined M.E. Dey & Co. in 2012, and is currently the Vice President of
Business Development and Business Solutions. She is a shareholder and part of the
fifth generation of family leadership for this respected Wisconsin company. Sarah is a
Certified Import Specialist and Certified Export Specialist with a passion for
international business, she works closely with overseas partner offices to collaborate,
develop, and streamline import and export processes for customers.

Ira Frydman is the Bureau Director – Export and Business Development Bureau
Division of Agricultural Development at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection. As the Export and Business Development Bureau
Director, Ira Frydman leads efforts to strengthen international agricultural trade and
expand market opportunities across the state. Prior to DATCP, Mr. Frydman was a career
U.S. diplomat with over 20-years of experience managing teams and designing
international programs in the fields of agriculture and food security, economic growth,
trade, environment, and energy. Since 2010, he served as a United States Agency for
International Development Foreign Service Officer in Nicaragua, Kenya, Afghanistan,
Thailand, Pakistan, and Washington D.C.

James Vanderloo, Station Manager at OEC Group Milwaukee. James is a diligent supply
chain professional with experience working across the Midwest (Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas and
Missouri) in different capacities. From analyzing and improving complex supply chains, to
managing international teams with diverse backgrounds, James travels around the US and
globally and is an expert in bringing together stakeholders from various sectors and industries
toward a common goal: increasing their value and optimizing processes.

MITA also recognizes Poonam Arora, Director of Global Trade Compliance and
Government Contracts, Arnold Magnetic Technologies, and Alison Jacobs, Vice
President, Trade & Customs, Kroll as a re-elected Board Members for the new, three-
year term starting January 1, 2026.

Continuing members on the board of directors also include:

• Rome Rauter of Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC)
• Dan Brink of DeWitt LLP
• Chris Rosborough of RSM US LLP
• Aleda Bourassa of ExportAble LLC/GoGlobal-WI SBDC
• Jenny Patzlaff of UWEBC at UW-Madison
• Mingshu Deng of SC Johnson
• Maureen Muldoon, Independent
• Dimitri Zografi of Husch Blackwell

MITA also recognizes two departing board members, Germaine Krystowiak of
Swarming Technology, Carla Kutsch of STAR7 and Nicole Hess of ME Dey & Co. who
served on MITA’s board for several years and have been instrumental in our recent
membership, marketing, and programming initiatives!

Published by M. E. Dey & Co. News, December 8, 2025

For most importers, the past few years have felt like one long balancing act. First came the pandemic shocks. Then the port backlogs, container shortages, geopolitical tensions, and inflation. Just when the world seemed ready for a breather, 2025 arrived with a fresh set of challenges anchored in one central theme: tariffs are back in full force, and they are changing everything.

What once looked like temporary trade measures now appears to be the new normal. A recent Maersk survey found that four out of five supply chain leaders expect the current disruptions to continue for another one to two years. That projection does not simply reflect slow global recovery. It reflects a deeper shift in how products move across borders and how companies think about sourcing. Tariffs are no longer brief interruptions in policy. They are a long-term cost, a strategic risk, and in many cases, the final push that forces companies to rethink their entire supply chain model.

Welcome to what many in the industry are calling the Great Supply Chain Reset.

A Year Defined by Tariff Pressure

The tariff landscape of 2025 has touched almost every sector. Expanded IEEPA duties, ongoing Section 301 actions, and the removal of the de minimis exemption for low-value shipments have raised costs for importers with very little warning. Many companies entered the year expecting some volatility, but few were prepared for the scale of cost increases and the speed at which they arrived.

The strain shows up clearly in economic data. According to recent reporting from Reuters, United States manufacturing contracted for the ninth month in a row in November. Executives cited rising input costs and the ongoing tariff load as major concerns. Higher duties now influence everything from raw materials to finished consumer products, and as a result, companies are making hard decisions about where to produce, how much to import, and how to manage risk in a world where trade rules seem to shift every quarter.

The result is a fundamental reexamination of sourcing. The idea that a company can rely on one country for most of its supply has started to disappear. Tariffs have become the catalyst that breaks long-standing habits.

Companies Are Rebuilding Their Supply Chains From the Ground Up

Across every major industry, businesses are quietly rewriting their sourcing strategy. Some are expanding production to Southeast Asia or India. Others are moving work to Mexico or even bringing parts of their supply chains back to the United States. The goal is not to abandon global sourcing. The goal is to reduce exposure to sudden policy changes and to reduce dependence on a single supplier, a single geography, or a single political environment.

Sectors that operate on thin margins, such as plastics and medical technology, have moved especially quickly. Industry reporting shows companies in these fields accelerating the shift to alternate locations as they try to protect both price stability and long-term business continuity. Each relocation comes with challenges, but the strategic advantage is clear. If one country becomes too expensive or too unpredictable, another location is already in the mix.

The “China plus one” model is no longer a trend. It is becoming the baseline for risk management.

A Wave of Contract Redesign

Alongside supply chain changes, companies are revisiting their contracts. Many are adding tariff escalation language, new pricing structures, and updated force majeure sections to reflect modern trade realities. These clauses help share risk between importers and suppliers and prevent situations where unexpected tariff increases force either party into large financial losses.

Companies are also performing more frequent supply chain audits. They want to know exactly where each component comes from and what fallback options exist. The world has learned that the origin story of a product matters far more than it once seemed. Even a small subcomponent can trigger a tariff or create a compliance issue if it comes from a restricted region.

This contract work is tedious, but it is becoming essential. A business that understands its supply chain on a deeper level is a business that can respond faster when world events shift.

Small Importers Are Facing the Toughest Conditions

While large companies adjust by spreading their supply chains across multiple countries, small and medium-sized importers often have fewer options. The removal of the de minimis exemption has hit these businesses especially hard. Items that once entered duty-free now arrive with full tariff costs attached. For many small retailers, especially those dependent on frequent low-value imports, this change has created real financial strain.

Industry stories from late 2025 describe retailers facing unexpected duty bills during the height of the holiday season. Some were able to adjust prices. Others simply absorbed the cost, knowing the alternative was a potential loss of customers. For smaller importers that compete primarily on price, the margin pressure is becoming unsustainable.

This is one reason why the restructuring of supply chains is not just a global strategy. It is becoming a survival strategy.

A New Pressure Emerges: The AI-Driven Chip Shortage

As companies navigate tariffs, another challenge is building in the background. Demand for advanced memory chips used in artificial intelligence has surged at a pace no one expected. Reuters recently reported that this spike has created a new supply shortage, with ripple effects across industries, from consumer electronics to data center infrastructure and industrial equipment.

This issue is not directly tied to tariffs, but it adds another layer of stress to the global logistics picture. Lead times are lengthening. Prices are rising. Manufacturers are delaying projects as they wait for critical components. Importers now face dual pressure from both geopolitical policy and technological demand.

The supply chain is not being tested on one front. It is being tested on all fronts at once.

Preparing for 2026 and Beyond

Given this environment, importers are not looking for temporary workarounds. They are looking for long-term stability. A few strategies are becoming essential:

• Conduct full landed cost modeling. Importers benefit from running multiple scenarios to understand how duties, freight shifts, and supplier changes affect total cost.
• Diversify suppliers and origins. Even small firms can explore alternative countries or secondary suppliers to prevent single point failure.
• Strengthen supplier agreements. Updated contracts with clear tariff language protect both sides of the partnership.
• Reevaluate inventory strategy. Some importers are building more safety stock, while others are tightening inventory to preserve cash. The right choice depends on product type and volatility.
• Explore duty mitigation tools. Options such as foreign trade zones, duty drawback, first sale valuation, and tariff engineering can help reduce exposure.

These are not short-term ideas. They represent a wider shift in how companies operate in a trade environment that may remain unpredictable for years.

The Competitive Advantage of Resilience

The Great Supply Chain Reset is not defined only by disruption. It is also defined by opportunity. Companies that adapt early, diversify their sourcing, modernize their contracts, and understand their risks may emerge stronger than before. They may also find new partners, new markets, and new cost structures that support long term growth.

Tariffs are reshaping global trade, but they are also forcing businesses to innovate. In a world where uncertainty has become a constant, resilience is no longer a defensive move. It is a competitive advantage.

We will continue to help importers navigate this evolving landscape, from tariff strategy to compliance to supply chain planning. The reset is underway. The smartest companies are using it to build what comes next.

The Madison International Trade Association is proud to welcome Chrissy Blanchard and Chris Rosborough to its board of directors. The newly elected members will serve a three-year term on the MITA Board of Directors starting January 1, 2024.

Chrissy Blanchard, a Certified Global Business Professional through NASBITE International, manages all aspects of US import/export processes for RBP Chemical Technology, Inc. Her role includes managing international sales support, order administration, documentation/recordkeeping, logistics, and export compliance. Chris Rosborough, a Senior Director for Tax Services at RSM US LLP, assists clients with multi-state and international operations in the manufacturing, wholesale distribution, and real estate industries. He has extensive experience in corporate reorganizations, credits and incentives, cost segregation, and all areas of state and local taxation.

MITA also recognizes Dan Brink, Attorney at Dewitt LLP,  as a re-elected Board Member for the new, three-year term starting January 1, 2024.

Continuing members on the board of directors also include:

• Poonam Arora of Arnold Magnetics
• Rome Rauter of Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation
• Phil Gantz of Wells Fargo Bank
• Germaine Krystowiak of Swarming Technology
• Aleda Bourassa of International Customs Services Inc.
• Alison Jacobs of FTI Consulting, Inc.
• Carla Kutsche of STAR7
• Maureen Muldoon, Independent

MITA also recognizes two departing board members, Paul Jarzombek of LR International and Maria Cartier of Port of Milwaukee, who served on MITA’s board for several years and have been instrumental in our recent membership, marketing, and programming initiatives!

Trade Dispute Panel Rules Against U.S. Claim of Unfair Canadian Dairy Tariffs Rate Quotas

On Friday, November 24th , a dispute settlement panel created under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) released a final report approving Canada’s most recent dairy Tariff-Rate Quota (“TRQs”) requirements. This finding that Canadian TRQs do not breach USMCA obligations, “flies in the face of the agreement our country made with Canada and puts our Made in Wisconsin dairy products at a disadvantage”, as stated by U.S. Senator from Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin. A full copy of the panel’s final report can be found here.

In 2022, the United States gained a favorable opinion from the same panel created under the USMCA, finding that Canada was breaching its commitments under the agreement by reserving most of the in- quota quantity in its dairy TRQs for the exclusive use of Canadian processors. Following this panel decision, Canada modified its TRQ requirements to comply with their USMCA commitment. The updated TRQ policy includes measures to use a market-share approach for determining TRQ allocations, and prevents retailers, food service operators, and other listed types of importers from utilizing TRQ allocations. The United States, via U.S. Trade Representative and Ambassador Katherine Tai, similarly challenged the updated Canadian TRQs, claiming that they still resulted in an undue restraint on U.S. dairy farmers exporting to the Canadian market.

While two of the three panelists concluded that Canada’s updated TRQs do not impose an undue restraint or violate any commitments under the USMCA, one panelist did agree with the claims by Ambassador Tai. The panelist stated that the narrow scope of applicants allowed under Canada’s TRQs significantly limits a large number of other Canadian importers who would be eager to bring U.S. dairy products to Canada. The dissenting panelist specified that Canada breached its USMCA commitment to make its dairy TRQs available to all applicants active in the Canadian food or agriculture sector.

Ruling that Canada’s TRQ requirements for applicants do not violate their commitment under the USMCA, poses a threat to both the U.S. Dairy Farmers and the Canadian Dairy Importers. The United States is a global leader in both dairy production and quality, and this ruling fights against an international dairy industry that provides for 150,000 jobs and $45.6 billion in state revenue in Wisconsin alone. Moreover, it prevents Canadian retailers and food service operators from accessing a steady and affordable supply of so desired quality U.S. dairy products. Senator Baldwin further stated, “This decision should have resulted in necessary improvements for market access for American dairy products in Canada, but instead sets a disturbing precedent that weakens the ability to use USMCA to push back against trade violations moving forward.”

Following the unfavorable outcome of this most recent USMCA panel, Ambassador Tai and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack made the comments below, reaffirming their staunch commitment to protecting the benefits that U.S. Farmers, processors, and exporters were promised under the USMCA.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: “The United States won the first USMCA case on Canada’s dairy TRQ allocation system with the ultimate goal of securing fair market access for U.S. dairy farmers, workers, processors, and exporters. Although we are disappointed in the outcome of this second case, we brought this case to refine and expand upon our win in the first case. We will continue to voice deep concerns about Canada’s system. We remain focused on securing the market access we believe Canada committed to under the USMCA and we will continue exploring all avenues available to achieve that goal.”

U.S. Ambassador Katherine Tai: “Despite the conclusions of this report, the United States continues to have serious concerns about how Canada is implementing the dairy market access commitments it made in the Agreement.  While the United States won a previous USMCA dispute on Canada’s dairy TRQ allocation measures, Canada’s revised policies have still not fixed the problem for U.S dairy farmers.  We will continue to work to address this issue with Canada, and we will not hesitate to use all available tools to enforce our trade agreements and ensure that U.S. workers, farmers, manufacturers, and exporters receive the full benefits of the USMCA.”

Baldwin Blasts Decision to Allow Canada’s Unfair Dairy Trade Practices to Stand, Hurting Wisconsin Farmers

USMCA Panel Releases Canada Dairy Report; Biden-Harris Administration Will Continue Seeking Full USMCA Benefits for U.S. Dairy

What are they saying? USMCA Dairy Ruling

For the first time since 1988, the US Trade Representative (“USTR”) requested that the US International Trade Commission (“USITC”) evaluate the foreign Trade zone (“FTZ”) program, specifically evaluating the program’s impact on employment and competitiveness of goods produced in FTZs.[1] Thus, the USITC instituted the “Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs): Effects of FTZ Policies and Practices on U.S. Firms Operating in U.S. FTZs and Under Similar Programs in Canada and Mexico” investigation.

Following a review of questionnaire responses from FTZ Operators and other data collected about US FTZ use, the USITC released their final report on May 15, 2023. This extensive report includes the following highlights:

1. U.S. FTZ Operators regularly see increased cost competitiveness. Firms utilizing the FTZ program, specifically for manufacturing activity, experienced duty cost savings of $1.2 billion in 2021. These savings are primarily achieved through duty deferral on shipments that make customs entry in the United States and duty exemption on direct export shipments.  

• The FTZ Program drives U.S. employment and investment. This study found that FTZ activity creates opportunities for employment and investment beyond just FTZ operators. For example, the USITC found a trend of “supplier firms cluster[ing] around [FTZ] facilities.” Thus, regions with FTZ activity generally see additional employment and development.

• FTZ Operators are regularly missing an opportunity for duty savings on “indirect export shipments”. This investigation reported about 77 percent of export shipments being “indirectly exported,” meaning the shipment was previously entered into U.S. commerce before being exported. This is a significant opportunity for duty savings by FTZ Operators that is not being utilized.

• FTZ Operators continue to be disadvantaged by U.S. De Minimis provisions. U.S. FTZ provisions require FTZ Operators of warehousing and distribution zones to pay duty on shipments valued at less than $800 even though those shipments would normally be below the de minimis threshold and duty free for U.S. Importers. These provisions regularly push companies to set up warehouse or distribution facilities in Canada or Mexico rather than keeping that activity in the U.S.

Overall, this report highlights the many economic benefits of the FTZ program, but it also highlights the work still to be done in leveling playing field between U.S. FTZ operators and their foreign competitors. This is only a report of facts and findings, but it may be crucial to future policy development for the FTZ program. 

---

[1] This factfinding investigation by the USITC is conducted under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce myself as the recently elected Madison International Trade Association (MITA) President for 2023 and to welcome you to another year of informing, networking and connecting with MITA.

I, along with the Executive Team of Dan Brink (Vice President), Phil Gantz (Treasurer) and Maureen Muldoon (Secretary), as well as the entire Board of Directors, are excited to serve you this year.  Board of Director elections were held in December. We are pleased to welcome four new directors to the Board. Below is a list of the 2023 Board Directors. Their contact information can be found on the MITA website.

• Poonam Arora, Arnold Magnetics
• Aleda Bourassa, International Customs Services, Inc. (ICS)
• Dan Brink, Dewitt LLP
• Maria Magyar Cartier, Port Milwaukee
• Phil Gantz, Wells Fargo
• Nicole Hess, M.E. Dey
• Alison Jacobs, FTI Consulting
• Paul Jarzombek, LR International
• Germaine Krystowiak, Swarming Technology
• Carla Kutsche, STAR7
• Maureen Muldoon, Trek Bicycle Inc.(retired)
• Jenny Patzlaff, UWEBC
• Rome Rauter, WEDC

Your Board is hard at work planning programming for this year and is excited that we are again hosting events in person at the Fluno Center in Madison, Wisconsin.  I encourage all of you to take full advantage of our luncheons which offer quality programming, delicious food and in-person networking with significant benefits which cannot be realized in a webinar. 

Our January and February in person events were well attended and we hope to build on that attendance at future events.  Speaking of future events, our March Program, Ukraine – Post Conflict Economic Development taking place March 14, 2023, will offer a timely presentation on the latest economic development opportunities in Ukraine.  To learn more and register, visit our website.

Thank you for your continued support and participation in MITA. I would love to hear from you with feedback, questions and suggestions.  My and the Board’s goal is to bring maximum value to you and your organizations as you navigate the field of international trade.  I look forward to seeing you at an upcoming event!

Sincerely,

Carla Kutsche

President, Madison International Trade Association

Overall, most trade analysts agree that the Section 301 tariffs have not succeeded in decoupling the U.S. and Chinese economies. Rather, they have highlighted some industries and sectors where the U.S. is still heavily reliant on China and where other countries and domestic sources may not be able to meet U.S. demand.

In 2017, the U.S. implemented punitive tariffs on products of Chinese origin following an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These tariffs were implemented beginning in 2018 and 2019 through a series of lists covering over $350 billion worth of goods. As the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) continues its statutorily required four-year review of the effectiveness of these tariff measures, it initiated a request for comments and issued a stakeholder questionnaire to examine the effectiveness of the tariffs in achieving the objectives of the original investigation. USTR also requested input on other actions that could be taken to address trade with China and the effects of the tariffs on the United States economy, including businesses and consumers. However, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics’ article Four years into the trade war, are the US and China decoupling?, trade trends four years after implementation seem to reveal that the U.S. may be more reliant on China than was originally anticipated.

Though U.S. imports of Chinese products subject to these tariffs sharply declined in 2018 shortly after implementation, trade activity since then has continued to rise. China is currently the source of 18% of total U.S. imports. This upward trend, and continued reliance on China, is likely due to importers finding practical means of relief, such as seeking exclusions from these tariffs for their imported products and implementing numerous duty mitigation strategies, such as tariff engineering, FTZs and drawback, to help offset some of the increased cost of procurement from China. Further, some importers are stuck paying these additional tariffs because sources of their goods outside of China are not available or not viable.

While U.S. imports of Chinese products subject to Section 301 tariffs were drastically reduced, U.S. imports of Chinese products that were not subject to these tariffs surged. This development is clearly seen in the import data of laptops, monitors, video game consoles, and smart phones, all consumer goods which have been spared. Throughout the Covid 19 pandemic, China remained a consistent source of these items, suggesting the U.S. is, and will remain, heavily reliant on China.

Many other countries were able to fill gaps in supply left by decreased imports from China. U.S. imports from the rest of world are 38% higher than before the tariffs were put in place; however, these other economies were not always able to meet the growing U.S. demand. This trend is evident when you look at the import activity of semiconductors. While import volumes from China have fallen from 47% to 39%, volumes from the rest of world have only grown by 5%. This is due to China’s ability to produce “legacy” chips for low profit margins while competitors in other countries did not have much interest in switching to these less profitable products.

Overall, most trade analysts agree that the Section 301 tariffs have not succeeded in decoupling the U.S. and Chinese economies. Rather, they have highlighted some industries and sectors where the U.S. is still heavily reliant on China and where other countries and domestic sources may not be able to meet U.S. demand. The current administration has largely continued the trade policy with China put in place by the prior administration and has not indicated that the tariffs will be removed or altered in the near future. Meanwhile, the USTR sought additional insight and data from stakeholders to better understand the broader economic and industry specific impacts of these tariffs. While U.S. importers must continue to navigate the global procurement landscape with these tariffs in play, the USTR’s analysis may provide a central opportunity to understand the effects of the tariffs to US operations and perhaps shape the direction of any potential changes to U.S.-China trade policy.

Each week, M.E. Dey shares important stories related to trade and the supply chain. Here are the headlines…

How the Russia-Ukraine war is worsening shipping snarls and pushing up freight rates (CNBC)‘Prepare for Turmoil’: China’s virus lockdowns ramp up supply-chain risks (SCMP)FMC Meeting Scheduled for March 16th Discussing Enforcement Activities (FMC)Weekly Supply Chain Disruption Roundup (NCBFAA)

Be Sure to Monitor Tariff Treatment of Russian Imports Staged or En Route for Transport and Entry into the U.S. (via NCBFAA)  With the recent announcement that the U.S. will revoke Russia’s Most Favored Nation Duty Status, NCBFAA urges its members to monitor Customs and Border Protection’s CSMS and other trade-facing announcements as to when goods originating from Russia for U.S. consumption will be subject to exponentially higher column two duty rates. While such tariff rate changes typically track the date of entry for consumption or withdrawal from warehouse, it is possible that they may track the date of export from Russia, in this latter case where goods already exported, but not yet entered, may not carry the higher duty rates.

China Tariff Refund Litigation Still Open to Importers (via ST&R) The U.S. has assessed additional tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods over the years pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Almost all previous exclusions have expired, reinstatements have been slow, and the Biden administration has given no indication of any intent to remove or revise the tariffs. Litigation currently before the Court of International Trade, first filed in 2020, and since joined by thousands of importers, is continuing to challenge the Section 301 tariffs on List 3 and 4A goods from China. Importers can still preserve their rights to possible refunds of these tariffs by joining the case. Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R) can assist in helping you file a claim by contacting attorneys Larry Ordet, Lenny Feldman, Rob DeCamp, or David Cohen at 301Litigation@strtrade.com.

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Reconsidering Dwell Fee on March 18th (via NCBFAA) The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have continued to postpone their “Container Dwell Fee,” and said they will reconsider its possible imposition on Feb. 25.  The executive directors of both ports will reassess fee implementation after monitoring data over the next week. Fee implementation has been postponed by both ports since it was announced on Oct. 25, but it remains a threat to the industry. Under the temporary policy approved Oct. 29 by the Harbor Commissions of both ports, ocean carriers can be charged for each import container that falls into one of two categories: In the case of containers scheduled to move by truck, ocean carriers could be charged for every container dwelling nine days or more. For containers moving by rail, ocean carriers could be charged if a container has dwelled for six days or more. The fee has been set at $100 per container, increasing in $100 increments per container per day of excess dwell time beyond the prescribed period.