News & Articles

Section 301 Investigation into Forced Labor Practices — US Allies and FTA Partners Under Scrutiny

On March 12, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published its Initiation of Section 301 Investigations into the practices of various economies, including that of US allies and long-standing trade partners, for their alleged failure to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor.  

What Can the USTR Do? 

Section 301, formally known as Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 or “Relief from Unfair Trade Practices,” authorizes the USTR to investigate acts, policies, or practices that it considers unreasonable, discriminatory, or burdensome to US commerce. The USTR goes on to say that practices which permit forced or compulsory labor meet the criteria of unreasonable, unfair, and inequitable. If the USTR concludes that an act is “unjustifiable” and “burdens or restricts” US commerce, action is mandatory. On the other hand, if the USTR determines that such act is only “unreasonable or discriminatory” and “burdens or restricts” US commerce, action is discretionary. In either case, when the USTR aims to remedy a foreign trade practice, the agency can (1) impose tariffs or other import restrictions, (2) withdraw or suspend trade agreement concessions, or (3) enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to either cease the conduct in question or compensate the US. Additionally, the statute requires that when USTR’s action is mandatory, the agency’s action should “affect goods or services of the foreign country in an amount that is equivalent in value to the burden or restriction […]

By |2026-03-16T08:20:41-04:00March 16, 2026|Forced Labor|0 Comments

You’ve Been Asked to Boycott – What to Know Before You Self‑Disclose

Companies engaged in international trade occasionally encounter requests that raise red flags under the U.S. anti‑boycott regulations. Whether the request appears in a tender document, a purchase order, a letter of credit, oral agreement, verbal request to furnish particular information, or a casual email, the moment you spot boycott‑related language, and become aware that your organization has complied with the request, the clock starts ticking to self-disclose to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC)

2025 and Beyond: BIS Updates Boycott Requester List

On April 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an updated list of foreign companies that have made boycott-related requests, including requests to comply with the Arab League boycott of Israel. In addition to removing 18 entities who have certified that they have ceased making such prohibited requests, BIS added 30 parties to its list (outlined below). Majority of the newly listed entities are domiciled in Malaysia, which aligns with the country’s foreign policy position that it refuses diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. While companies generally want to comply with the laws of every jurisdiction in which they operate, it is important to understand the risks of non-compliance with OAC rules.  

As recommended by BIS, U.S. companies are encouraged to diligently review transaction documents from all sources, especially those involving these listed parties, to identify possible boycott-related language and to determine whether their recipients have a reporting requirement to BIS.   

If you are unsure whether the language of your contracts must be reported to the OAC or concerned about doing business in jurisdictions where listed entities have been identified, contact Diaz Trade Law today at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.  

Want more information on OAC compliance? Read more here. 

Breaking Trade News: CIT IEEPA Tariff Order, AG Tariff Lawsuit, 2026 Trade Policy Agenda

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news: 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

  • On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton issued a strong and detailed order requiring the refunds for entries of every plaintiff before the CIT who has challenged these IEEPA Tariffs. It is not clear whether he is also ordering the refunds for everyone else not in court, which will unquestionably be further litigated. We continue to believe that filing litigation at the CIT is the surest bet to get refunds of IEEPA duties and to get refunds quickly. 
  • New York Attorney General Letitia James and prosecutors from 23 other states filed a lawsuit in the CIT to block President Trump’s global tariff regime and order refunds to states. 

Administration   

  • In an interview with CNBC, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the Section 122 tariff rate will increase from 10% to 15% “sometime this week.” 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)   

  • CBP officers in Philadelphia seized 36 copper-alloy short swords and 50 copper-alloy arrowheads that date back to the Bronze Age, almost 4,000 years ago. 

Department of Commerce 

  • A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against large-diameter graphite electrodes from China […]
By |2026-03-06T11:10:39-05:00March 6, 2026|news, Snapshot|0 Comments

Court Orders Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs – NOW Is the Time to File Litigation at the CIT

In a significant development for importers, on March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a strong and detailed order requiring the refunds for entries of every plaintiff before the CIT who has challenged these IEEPA Tariffs.

The CIT Order

In the order, Judge Eaton clearly stated that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT has national jurisdiction and the ability to issue a broad order, that he is the judge to whom all IEEPA refunds have been assigned, and that he views the facts and law as clear. It is not clear whether he is also ordering the refunds for everyone else not in court, which will unquestionably be further litigated. 

We note that in response to written questions from the court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that they were continuing to liquidate entries with IEEPA duties if they were deposited at the time of entry, that they were not issuing refunds, and that they had not issued instructions to liquidate without IEEPA duties. They further stated that any refunds will require a review to determine if there was a violation of other customs laws or if other duties, taxes, and fees were still owed. In other words, CBP intends to conduct detailed reviews of all entries before issuing refunds. The responses provided by CBP to the Judge were reviewed by the Judge and likely resulted […]

Go to Top