LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

Trade Policy

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has recently announced a series of significant Section 301 actions targeting a range of trade-related concerns, including intellectual property protection, forced labor, and alleged unfair trade practices. Collectively, these developments demonstrate the Administration’s continued willingness to utilize Section 301 as a tool to address perceived barriers to U.S. commerce and advance broader trade policy objectives. 

Vietnam

On May 29, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing an investigation of Vietnam under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation follows identifying Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country in the 2026 Special 301 Report, which was published on April 30, 2026. The investigation will seek to determine whether Vietnam’s persistent failure to resolve long-standing concerns about intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce

Once the investigation is complete, Ambassador Greer will determine what, if any, responsive action should be taken to address them. Comments in this proceeding are due July 2, 2026. 

Brazil

On June 2, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing a determination under Section 301 that certain of Brazil’s acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act. These acts, policies, and practices include: 

    […]
By |2026-06-05T11:10:41-04:00June 5, 2026|Enforcement, Enforcement, Forced Labor, International Trade, Special 301, tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)|0 Comments
Read More

Appeals Court Keeps Section 122 Tariffs in Place (For Now): What Importers Need to Know

On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a significant decision holding that the Trump Administration’s 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 were unlawful. Just days later, on May 12, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stepped in and temporarily stayed that ruling. 

Thus, despite a major legal victory for plaintiff-importers at the CIT, and the hope provided to non-parties seeking similar relief in their own proceedings, Section 122 tariffs remain in effect – for now – while the appeal proceeds.  

Key Takeaways from the Stay 

The stay issued by the Court of Appeals pauses the CIT’s judgment while the Appeals Court considers the government’s motion for a longer stay pending appeal. The original plaintiffs have seven days to respond to the government’s motion, and the Court of Appeals has set an expedited briefing schedule, signaling that further developments should come quickly. 

Since this decision does not adjudicate the merits of the case (i.e., agree or disagree with the CIT’s decision), importers who are not party to the original lawsuit can still plan to file their own lawsuits with the CIT because Section 122 tariffs are unlawful. Additionally, the Appeals Court’s order keeps the collection of the 122 tariffs in place.  

What This Order Means for Importers 

1. Duties Must Still Be Paid

CBP will continue to assess and collect the 10% Section […]

By |2026-05-14T12:45:13-04:00May 14, 2026|International Trade, tariffs, Trade Policy|0 Comments
Read More

Can Importers Obtain Refunds After Section 122 Tariffs Were Invalidated? 

On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the Section 122 tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the Trade Act of 1974 are invalid. Previously, tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—including the “reciprocal tariffs” and the “fentanyl tariffs”—had been ruled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2026. On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the CIT issued an order requiring the refund of all IEEPA tariffs paid by importers. 

So, what does the invalidation of the Section 122 tariffs mean? How does it relate to the IEEPA tariffs? Can importers who have paid Section 122 tariffs also apply for refunds?

I. The Launch and Termination of IEEPA Tariffs 

In fact, the Section 122 tariffs served as a “backup plan” for the IEEPA tariffs. To understand the relationship between the two, we must first clarify the entire process of the IEEPA tariffs from initiation to termination. 

The IEEPA tariffs were imposed by the Trump administration in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA authorizes the President, after declaring a national emergency, to broadly regulate various economic transactions, and it is a core document of modern U.S. sanctions mechanisms. It originated from the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which was enacted after World War I to regulate transactions with hostile nations. The scope of TWEA was expanded in the 1930s, allowing the President to declare a […]

By |2026-06-08T13:43:11-04:00May 12, 2026|International Trade, tariffs, Trade Policy|0 Comments
Read More

Tariff and Macroeconomic Risk Disclosures:

Lessons from Recent Shareholder Litigation Against Dow and Tronox

Authors:  

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

Recent securities class actions against Dow Inc. and Tronox Holdings plc underscore the growing litigation risk associated with tariff‑related and broader economic disclosures in periodic reports, earnings calls, and investor communications. These cases highlight how shareholder plaintiffs are scrutinizing statements that characterize tariffs and related headwinds as manageable, temporary, or hypothetical when subsequent developments suggest a more pronounced or foreseeable impact. 

As public companies continue to navigate volatile trade policy, supply chain disruption, and demand uncertainty, these lawsuits provide concrete guidance on how the SEC’s disclosure framework—particularly risk factors and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) “known trends” disclosures—may be applied in hindsight by regulators and private litigants. 

Regulatory Framework: Risk Factors and Known Trends 

SEC rules make clear that companies must disclose certain risks to investors. For example, Item 105 of Regulation S‑K requires companies to disclose material risks that make an investment speculative or risky, while Item 303 requires MD&A discussion of known trends, events, or uncertainties reasonably likely to have a material impact on financial condition or operating results. In this context, tariffs – particularly where they affect costs, pricing, demand, or dividends – have increasingly been viewed as classic “known trends,” rather than contingent or […]

By |2026-04-17T12:30:17-04:00April 17, 2026|International Trade, tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)|0 Comments
Read More

FinCEN Issues NPRM to Fully Implement Whistleblower Program

Authors:

Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law

Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

FinCEN’s March 30, 2026, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) marks a major step toward fully operationalizing the agency’s whistleblower program, designed to incentivize reporting of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), sanctions, IEEPA, and other illicit finance violations. The proposal outlines how whistleblowers can securely submit information, how awards will be determined, and what protections will be available.  

This development reflects the Treasury Department’s broader strategy to strengthen financial system integrity and encourage actionable tips that support enforcement efforts. For financial institutions, compliance professionals, and potential whistleblowers, the NPRM provides long‑awaited clarity on program structure and expectations. 

Overview of the Proposed Rule 

FinCEN’s NPRM proposes a comprehensive framework for administering whistleblower submissions and awards. Key elements include: 

  • Secure submission procedures for individuals reporting suspected violations of the BSA, OFAC sanctions, and related laws. 
  • Eligibility criteria for whistleblower awards, including documentation requirements and timelines. 
  • Award ranges of 10–30% of monetary penalties collected when a whistleblower’s information leads to a successful enforcement action. 
  • Robust protections for individuals who provide information, including confidentiality and anti‑retaliation safeguards. 

These provisions aim to encourage early, detailed reporting while ensuring whistleblowers are shielded from adverse consequences. 

Why FinCEN Is Prioritizing Whistleblower Incentives 

The NPRM aligns with Treasury’s broader […]

By |2026-04-03T10:52:12-04:00April 3, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, Trade Policy, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)|0 Comments
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top