Webinar recap | USMCA and beyond: How importers can prepare for the next wave of trade changes

Automotive rules of origin are clearly part of the ongoing negotiations, with the Office of the United States Representative (USTR) publicly discussing automotive rules of origin (ROO), increased North American production, and limiting non-market inputs into regional supply chains. As of 20 September, however, no final replacement Regional Value Content (RVC) percentage or formula has been publicly announced, so it would be premature to assume a specific increase. The United States did not agree to renew USMCA in its current form on 1 July, and negotiations remain ongoing, so timing will depend on the resulting negotiated changes and any necessary implementation steps.

Agriculture is expressly part of the continuing USMCA negotiations, so agricultural products could be affected through market access, origin, regulatory, or other negotiated changes. However, as of 20 September, no published USTR proposal specifically establishes new USMCA treatment for fresh fruits and vegetables. For now, it would be more appropriate to monitor the agricultural negotiations rather than assume a specific change to tariffs or origin rules.

The best starting points are the current Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) Chapter 99 US Note 16, the applicable Section 232 proclamations, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s Section 232 filing guidance. A finished product is not subject to Section 232 merely because it contains steel or aluminum. First, determine whether the finished good’s HTS classification is within current Section 232 coverage, and then apply the applicable metal-content and value rules. For covered steel derivatives, CBP reporting may require melt-and-pour information even where favorable treatment is claimed, so missing supplier data should not be treated as an exemption. China-origin goods may also have other tariff layers, such as Section 301, which should be analyzed separately.

The list is better understood as a Section 338 retaliatory tariff list, rather than a list of automotive products. The motor vehicle proclamation authorized additional duties on a selected basket of Canadian products in response to the identified Canadian automotive measures, and Annex II expressly includes HTS 3504.00.10. Thus, protein isolate does not need to be an automotive product to be selected as part of the retaliatory tariff action.

Not automatically. Under CBP's current guidance, most goods properly entered under Chapter 98 are outside the additional Section 338 duty, but 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, 9802.00.60 and 9802.00.80 are specifically exempt from that general treatment. For those provisions, Section 338 applies to the applicable foreign repair, processing, alteration, or assembly value, so the exact 9802 provision and transaction facts would need to be reviewed.

The current Section 338 measures are directed at specified products of Canada. Section 338 itself, however, is not limited to Canada; the statute authorizes action against a foreign country meeting the statutory discrimination criteria. The Canadian product lists were also modified effective as of 15 September 15 2026, so current HTS coverage should be checked for each entry.

There is currently no general CBP instruction requiring importers to repay IEEPA refunds already issued through CAPE. There is, however, continuing appellate litigation concerning the scope of refund relief, particularly for finally liquidated entries, so the procedural landscape is not completely settled. Importers should retain their CAPE, liquidation, refund, and payment records until litigation is fully resolved. It seems unlikely, though.

Current CAPE functionality accepts reconciliation-flagged entries only where the Type 09 Reconciliation has not yet been filed. Presently, filing or closing the reconciliation does not make those underlying entries eligible. An open or suspended protest also prevents current CAPE acceptance, although CBP states that a protest filed solely for an IEEPA refund may be withdrawn and submitted through CAPE if the entry remains within the 80-day eligibility window. Given that withdrawing a protest may surrender procedural rights, the decision should be made on an entry-by-entry basis rather than as a blanket approach.

CAPE may be filed within 80 days after liquidation or at any time prior to liquidation.

No, your protest remains valid. CAPE III will only be available to importers who have filed a suit with the Court of International Trade (CIT). Consult legal counsel to determine the best course of action for your circumstances.

IEEPA and Section 232 are separate trade remedy actions. For IEEPA claims, CAPE must be filed within 80 days of liquidation. If an entry is more than 80 days but fewer than 180 days past liquidation, consider filing a protective protest requesting suspension of liquidation pending the litigation’s outcome. Importers should consult legal counsel to determine whether a protective protest or CIT filing is most appropriate..

Yes, requests for detailed chemical identity and percentages can arise where CBP or another agency needs composition information to determine classification, admissibility, or regulatory treatment. Supplier confidentiality is a common concern, and certain Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) procedures permit confidential information to be protected as confidential business information (CBI) or, in some circumstances, submitted directly by a supplier rather than disclosed commercially to the importer. The importer nevertheless needs sufficient information and documentation to support its customs and agency declarations. A safety data sheet (SDS) or trade name alone may not always be sufficient.