During the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump last month, Justice Barrett asked counsel for the private plaintiffs about the tariff refund process if his clients prevail. After some back and forth, she summarized: “So a mess?”

Although the Court has not yet announced when an opinion may be released, entries subject to President Trump’s first tariffs—the “fentanyl” tariffs on Chinese-origin goods—will soon begin to liquidate. Under customs law, liquidation is the point at which duties on an entry become final.

If an entry liquidates, a refund may be foreclosed unless the importer takes action. Thus, importers should understand the standard liquidation cycle and the avenues for pursuing refunds if the Court holds the tariffs are unlawful and refunds are available.

How liquidation works

Most entries liquidate by operation of law approximately 314 days after the entry date. Absent a qualifying exception, liquidation cuts off judicial review and eliminates the possibility of a refund.

The key statutory exception is a timely filed protest. Protests—essentially administrative appeals to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—must be filed within 180 days of liquidation to be timely. If CBP denies the protest, the importer can then sue in the Court of International Trade to challenge that denial.

Liquidation timing vis-à-vis the tariffs

The President has issued four types of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

  • The “fentanyl” tariffs on Canadian-, Chinese-, and Mexican-origin goods. The “fentanyl” tariffs went into effect on February 4 for China and March 4 for Canada and Mexico.
  • The reciprocal tariffs, which went into effect on April 5.
  • The “free speech” tariffs on Brazilian-origin goods, which went into effect on August 6.
  • The secondary tariffs on Indian-origin goods, which went into effect on August 27.

Entries subject to the “fentanyl” tariffs on Chinese‑origin goods are expected to begin liquidating on or after December 15, followed by Canadian and Mexican “fentanyl” entries on January 12, 2026. Entries subject to the reciprocal tariffs are expected to begin liquidating on February 13. Entries subject to Brazil “free speech” tariffs will liquidate on June 16, and entries subject to the India secondary tariffs will liquidate on July 7.

These dates frame the final windows to deploy administrative or judicial tools to preserve refund eligibility for each program.

Learning Resources does not involve a challenge to the Section 232 tariffs on certain aluminum and steel articles and derivative products; automobiles; automobile parts; copper products; lumber, timber, and derivative products; and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, buses, and parts. Therefore, those tariffs will not be eligible for refunds, regardless of how the Court rules.

Potential refund strategies

Importers should be considering the following potential refund strategies in advance of the Court’s ruling in Learning Resources:

  • Post Summary Corrections (PSCs): CBP may direct importers to submit PSCs on unliquidated entries, which would then trigger the refund process once accepted. This is consistent with CBP’s prior practice for retroactive tariff changes. PSCs generally can be filed within 300 days of entry.
  • Protests: Protests are entry‑specific, administrative appeals filed with CBP. CBP has up to two years to decide protests, so this pathway may be slower for refunds even if the IEEPA tariffs are held to be unlawful. As noted above, protests must be filed within 180 days of liquidation.
  • Lawsuit in the Court of International Trade (CIT): A lawsuit now in the CIT, coupled with a motion for a preliminary injunction directing CBP to suspend liquidation of the importer’s entries, can help provide short-term relief from the administrative burden of tracking liquidation dates and filing protests for every entry since February. If the Court holds the tariffs are unlawful, a lawsuit may also yield faster and more centralized relief for the importer than CBP’s administrative processes. For any entries that liquidate before a preliminary injunction is in place, importers should still file protests to preserve their refund rights.

If you would like to discuss or pursue any of these strategies, please do not hesitate to contact our International Trade and National Security attorneys.

Yesterday, the European Union adopted safeguard measures (C/2025/7842) to curb imports of manganese- and silicon-based ferro-alloys, key alloying inputs for the European steel industry. The decision follows a surge in imports and forms part of a broader policy response to global overcapacity and shifting trade flows in the steel sector. The measures take effect on 18 November 2025 and will be in force for an initial period of three years.

 The safeguard measures conclude an investigation initiated by the European Commission on 19 December 2024 (C/2024/7541) into manganese- and silicon-based ferro-alloys. In launching the probe, the Commission pointed to overcapacity on the global market and an increasing number of trade defence actions by third countries affecting these products, factors that can divert trade towards the EU and lead to injurious import surges. While safeguard investigations are ordinarily concluded within nine months, the Commission found exceptional grounds to extend the inquiry by two months (C/2025/5015), citing the structure of the EU industry and the nature of the products at issue, which require complex economic and legal assessment. The vote on the definitive measures was repeatedly postponed due to the difficulty of securing a majority, particularly because the inclusion of imports from Norway and Iceland under the measures was contentious among member states. The measures, as published yesterday, apply to imports originating in all countries, including those with which the EU has bilateral or regional trade agreements. With the exception of countries that are specifically set out in the published measures, the Commission has determined, consistent with the EU’s World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, that imports of the product concerned originating in developing country WTO Members and in Algeria are excluded from the measures.

The measures apply to manganese- and silicon-based ferro-alloys entering the EU market – specifically, ferro-manganese, ferro-silicon, ferro-silico-manganese, and ferro-silico-magnesium. Silicon and calcium‑silicon, which were initially within the scope of the investigation, have been excluded from the measures due to declining imports or the absence of EU production. Because safeguard measures are designed to address sudden, sharp, and unforeseen surges in imports that threaten serious injury to a domestic industry, the instrument adopted seeks to moderate the pace of inflows and stabilise market conditions for EU producers of these essential steel inputs. This is achieved through the imposition of safeguard measures combining tariff-rate quotas (TRQ) with an out-of-quota variable duty. Imports of products subject to these measures that enter the EU within the allocated TRQ volume will not incur safeguard duty. Imports that exceed the TRQ volume will be subject to a variable duty calculated as the difference between the cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) import price and the price threshold established for the relevant product category (if the former price is lower than the threshold).

The annual TRQ is apportioned into four consecutive three-month periods, beginning on 18 November each year. Similar to the steel safeguard measures, countries with a share of more than 5% of imports over the last three years for the relevant product type (e.g., Norway, Brazil, and India) are allocated country-specific quotas, while imports originating from other countries may claim the residual quota on a first-come, first-served basis, i.e., in the chronological order in which declarations of release for free circulation are accepted. By way of illustration, the price threshold set for ferro-silicon (HS codes 7202 21 and 7202 29) is €2,408 per metric ton (CIF). If the TRQ volume per country and per product category is exceeded and the CIF price of the import is €1,500 per metric ton, the variable safeguard duty due would be €908 per metric ton, reflecting the difference between the minimum sales price and the CIF import price.

Importers, traders, and downstream users should assess the impact of the new measures on sourcing strategies and supply continuity. EU importers of in-scope products must carefully determine the non-preferential origin of the goods they source and assess how the safeguard tariff affects their purchase price. Contract terms, delivery schedules, and customs planning may need to be reviewed in light of the new measures.

Following the EU’s existing embargo on Russian crude oil and petroleum products, the European Commission has proposed, and the Council has now agreed in principle, a complementary Regulation designed to end the remaining inflows of Russian natural gas into the Union. The measure gives legal effect to the Commission’s May 2025 Roadmap towards ending Russian energy imports (see our previous client alert here) and forms part of the wider REPowerEU strategy, which is distinct from and separate to the EU’s sanctions programme. It will now proceed to negotiations with the European Parliament before formal adoption.

The Regulation establishes a binding timetable for the phase-out of Russian gas imports, while introducing a uniform authorisation system and stricter transparency requirements across Member States. The Council agreed its General Approach by a qualified majority.

The Council’s agreement represents its General Approach under the EU’s legislative procedure. The next step is for the European Parliament to adopt its own position on the proposal. Once both institutions have agreed their respective positions, negotiations (trilogues) between the Council, Parliament, and Commission will take place to settle the final text. The Regulation will then be formally adopted and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Our lawyers delve into the details of this Regulation in their latest client alert.

Key Takeaways

  • The measure seeks to close remaining ‘loopholes’ in the EU’s Russian oil embargo and maintain consistency with allied sanctions.
  • The safe-harbour country presumption eases compliance for imports from established crude exporters but can be rebutted by competent Member State authorities.
  • Risk-based due diligence remains essential: importers must be ready to demonstrate non-Russian origin if challenged.
  • Companies should now review supply chains, update contractual clauses, and ensure they can substantiate origin claims in due course.
  • On 15 October 2025, the UK announced intent to impose similar measures in due course.
Continue Reading New requirements for importing CN code 2710 cargo into the EU from 21 January 2026

In continuation of the UK’s sanctions restrictions against Russia, on 15 October 2025, the UK imposed further sanctions on various entities and vessels.

The headline designations include:

  • PJSC Rosneft Oil Company
  • Nayara Energy Limited (which was already subject to EU asset freeze restrictions)
  • Alghaf Marine DMCC
  • PJSC Lukoil

In some regards, these designations mirror the intent of the EU (noting their upcoming 19th sanctions package is intended to impose a full transaction ban on Russian oil majors), signaling joint efforts on the sanctions efforts against Russia between the UK and EU in recent months.

Continue Reading UK Sanctions – Rosneft, Lukoil and others 

China’s Ministry of Transport will impose a new “Special Port Service Fee” on U.S. linked vessels from 14 October 2025, aligning with U.S. Section 301 measures taking effect the same day. In its announcement, the Chinese Ministry of Transport criticises the U.S. actions announced in April this year and warns of significant disruption to maritime trade between China and the United States. For more on the application of China’s Special Port Service Fee, based on the Ministry of Transport’s announcement, read our latest post.

On 7 October 2025, the European Commission presented a proposal for a new regulation to introduce rigorous trade measures on steel entering the EU market. The proposal is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, under which the European Parliament and the Council act as co‑legislators to amend and ultimately adopt the text. We therefore expect changes; however, we highlight the following as the Commission’s key areas of focus:

  • Lower tariff‑free import volumes; higher out‑of‑quota duty
  • Country of ‘melt and pour’
  • Adjustments, country allocations, and bilateral safeguards

For more information, read our full post here.

The distinctive features that set a luxury brand’s products apart aren’t created only on the factory floor. For example, a company’s sketches from Paris, R&D in Milan, and artisanal prototypes perfected in Tokyo all flow into the production line. These upstream inputs (known as assists) must be carefully managed to avoid issues when the final product meets a border crossing. In a recent post, published as part of our Always in Season: Luxury, Fashion, and the Law series, our team explores how global luxury brands can harmonize their approach to assists globally to reduce compliance costs, mitigate the risk of systematic overpayment of tariffs, and stay ahead of customs disputes.

On September 29, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released an interim final rule expanding its controls under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cover foreign entities owned directly or indirectly, individually or in aggregate, 50% or more by one or more persons listed on (1) the Entity List, (2) the Military End-User (MEU) List, or (3) the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) designated under a program listed in 15 C.F.R. § 744.8(a)(1) (collectively, “Listed Persons”). BIS is referring to these new controls as the Affiliates Rule.

Exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to foreign entities captured by the Affiliates Rule will be subject to the most restrictive license requirements, license exception eligibility, and license review policy applicable to their owners. The Affiliates Rule is effective immediately.

Continue Reading BIS adopts 50% rule to cover affiliates of listed entities

With tariffs and trade measures continuing to reshape global markets, companies are navigating how best to respond, often considering price and supply chain adjustments as part of the process. As antitrust enforcers scrutinize competitor conduct, our antitrust and international trade teams have collaborated to launch a two-part podcast series, focusing on the practical impact of recent developments and key priorities for in-house counsel.

To listen to the full episodes, click the links below: