Trade & Tariff Update #31 - Tariff Refund Decision Appealed, United States-China Board of Trade & More

EPR Litigation Progressing in Oregon and Colorado

Lawsuits against EPR laws in Oregon and Colorado are moving forward.  The action in Oregon is the first to test how far states can go in mandating that companies pay for packaging and recycling programs run by private producer responsibility organizations (PROs).   Following the grant in February of a preliminary injunction (barring enforcement of the law against the specific plaintiff association), the challenge to Oregon’s packaging EPR law is set for trial in federal court this July.  As the court did not permit intervention by multiple similar organizations, those entities now must await the outcome at trial while Oregon proceeds with enforcement.   

In Colorado, an industry trade association filed suit in state court in March, challenging issues related to that state’s implementation of its EPR law.  Colorado’s motion to dismiss remains pending. 

A good summary of the litigation and its potential implications, prepared by Arnold & Porter, may be found here.

California EPR Deadline   

California has set a July 1, 2026, registration deadline for covered producers.  Details may be found here. 

USTR Announces Development of United States-China Board of Trade

Also on June 2, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced a public comment process associated with a United States-China Board of Trade, a new government-to-government trade mechanism intended to manage bilateral trade between both countries on an ongoing basis.  Public comment is being solicited to identify specific types of non-sensitive items that might merit tariff reductions.   

The deadline for comment submission is July 10, and any rebuttals or responses to those comments may be submitted to a separate public docket by July 27.   

Click here to view the Federal Register notice. 

Flurry of Section 301 Activity   

The Administration advanced its efforts to impose a replacement tariff regime for the IEEPA duties last week.  Two Section 301 tariff recommendations were announced with comment periods commencing and hearings scheduled for early July.  Still outstanding is the Section 301 investigation into China and 15 other countries for alleged excess capacity, which could result in an additional tranche of duties to restore the IEEPA tariff levels.  While all of these must still be vetted through the comment process, final determinations are still possible by the July 24 Section 122 tariff expiration date established after the Supreme Court decision barring the IEEPA duties.  Details on the recommended Section 301 actions are as follows: 

Brazil

On June 1, the USTR announced a proposed action to impose a 25% tariff on Brazil resulting from the Section 301 Investigation into that country’s trade practices.  This would replace the 50% duties imposed under IEEPA that were ruled illegal.  

Details on the determination and the proposed action may be found here. 

USTR is accepting comments on the proposed action and will hold public hearings. Written comments must be submitted by July 1, and requests to appear at the hearings are due by June 22.  The first hearing is scheduled for July 7.   

A docket for comments regarding the investigation is available here.  

A docket for requests to appear at the public hearing to be held in connection with this investigation will be available here . 

Click here for an article discussing the decision. 

Vietnam

On May 29, the USTR launched a new Section 301 investigation into Vietnam’s policies regarding intellectual property protection and enforcement.  The action could result in additional tariffs on imports from that country although it is possible the matter could be resolved through bilateral negotiations.  

The USTR notice on the investigation may be found here.  

Comments from interested parties are due by July 2 and may be submitted on the USTR’s Comments Portal. 

Click here for additional background on this action.  

Forced Labor

On June 2, the USTR announced a proposed action resulting from the Section 301 Investigation initiated last year into forced labor practices of 60 countries including Brazil, China and Vietnam.  It was determined that all those countries have failed to address issues of forced labor, justifying the imposition of additional duties.  In most cases the recommended duty would be 10%; however, for Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan, alleged failures to address the importation of product made with forced labor would result in a 12.5% duty. 

The Administration’s response to its Section 301 investigations was anticipated and aligns with its efforts to replace the IEEPA tariff regime with Section 301 duties.  A separate investigation into excess capacity for a large group of countries is still pending.  It is believed that these duties would stack on top the ones proposed for Brazil as part of a separate Section 301 investigation.   

A copy of the report is available here.  A copy of the Federal Register notice setting out the U.S. Trade Representative’s actionability determination and proposed actions is available here. 

The USTR will hold a hearing on this proposal on July 7, 2026. Written comments are due by July 6, and requests to appear must be submitted by June 22.  

A docket for comments regarding the investigations will be available here. 

A docket for requests to appear at the public hearings to be held in connection with these investigations will be available here. 

Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Modifications 

Last week, President Trump issued a proclamation lowering the 25% duty on some aluminum products to 15%, but specified Aluminum Lithographic Plates as being subject to the 25% derivative duty level.  Details on the proclamation may be found here. 

USMCA 

Reports indicate that Canada is seeking discussions with U.S. counterparts to renew the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement for 16 years.  Tensions have heightened due to actions taken by the Canadian government to shift defense acquisition from the U.S. to other countries, and USTR Ambassador Jameison Greer has stated that any new agreement will include tariffs.  

Executive Order on Customs Enforcement

On June 3, 2026, the President issued an Executive Order revising importer eligibility regulations, guidance, and policies that will likely impact Importers of Record (IOR).  These revisions include: 

(i)    requiring that an IOR maintain at all times a minimum level of tangible domestic assets, bonding, or both, as determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to be necessary to ensure compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws, and increasing the minimum required bond coverage for an IOR; 

(ii)   requiring that an IOR be designated and reported to CBP, and that a bond, or sufficient tangible domestic assets, or both, be required, for all formal entries under 19 U.S.C. 1484 and informal entries under regulations promulgated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1498; and 

(iii)  requiring that an IOR provide to CBP additional data and identification information, including anticipated import volumes, year organized, ownership and beneficial ownership disclosures, business affiliation disclosures, and domestic asset disclosures, and any other data that CBP deems necessary. 

These measures are intended to cap tariff levels and give the Administration leverage to continue negotiating trade deals and securing policy concessions with other countries.  While India is engaging in further talks with the U.S. on a stalled trade deal, the Administration continues to prepare for the next meeting with China’s president Xi in September.  The uncertainty of final outcomes remains a challenge for foreign countries and U.S. businesses alike. 

Meanwhile, continuing in the background are more challenges to the economy and plummeting consumer and voter confidence in the Administration.  According to a recent survey by the Federal Reserve, fears of inflation and negative impacts on consumers are lowering business growth expectations, perhaps inhibiting any change in interest rates or leading to an increase in the cost of borrowing. 

Disclaimer: APPA does not make any representations about the completeness, suitability, or adequacy of the information provided during the Office Hours or Trade Talks.   Any information provided are intended for general informational purposes only, they do not constitute a recommendation or solicitation to do or omit to do any action and should not be interpreted as legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. You should seek independent advice from qualified professionals before acting on any information provided and/or to evaluate specific regulatory obligations and operational decisions.
Disclaimer from Progressive Trade Consulting: PTC is not a law firm, does not practice law, and does not provide legal advice. The Client should consult legal counsel for any legal matters, including trade compliance. The Importer of Record (IOR) is responsible for complying with customs regulations and managing the import process. This includes obtaining required licenses and permits, classifying and valuing goods correctly, declaring goods accurately, paying duties and taxes, following import rules, and maintaining proper records.