Global Regulatory Update for March 2025
ABA And B&C Announce Release Of “Chemical Product Law and Supply Chain Stewardship” Book: The Acta Group (Acta®) and Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) are pleased to announce the release by American Bar Association (ABA) Publishing of Chemical Product Law and Supply Chain Stewardship: A Guide to New TSCA, edited by Acta President Lynn L. Bergeson and authored by Ms. Bergeson and members of Acta and B&C’s highly experienced Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) practice group. This invaluable guide provides a road map to navigate efficiently the transformational changes in chemical product law, identifies the practical business and product stewardship implications of the new normal in product regulation, and explains the urgent need for supply chain awareness so that the business community and others can make informed and compliant business decisions. Please note: A 20% off discount code will be provided to Acta clients and friends via e-mail later this month — so keep watch for that.
Recording Available For “What’s New with New Approach Methodologies: A Webinar,” Featuring EPA CCTE’s Katie Paul Friedman, Ph.D., And PETA Toxicology Specialist Adam Bettmann, MS, DABT®: A recording is available for B&C and Acta’s webinar featuring experts in the toxicology field discussing the state of play as stakeholders take advantage of new approach methodologies (NAM). Adam Bettmann, MS, DABT®, a Toxicology Specialist representing PETA Science Consortium International e.V., navigates the current state of NAMs and their use for submissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing an overview of some of the relevant guideline and non-guideline testing approaches, the process of vetting NAMs for readiness, and available training and educational opportunities. Katie Paul Friedman, Ph.D., Acting Director for the Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division in the Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) in EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), provides an overview of the TSCA New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program (NCCRP) as the lead within the ORD. An overview of the proposed research plan and its components (as presented to the U.S. EPA ORD Board of Scientific Councilors in late 2022) is followed by descriptions of early works in progress and publications related to this effort. Richard E. Engler, Ph.D. wraps up these issues with an overview of TSCA Section 4 authority and chemical testing issues. Watch now.
AUSTRALIA
Australia Seeks Comment On Information Requirements For “Designated Fluorinated Chemical” Assessments: The Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) has begun a public consultation to obtain comments on the clarity of the information requirements that will be added to the form for an AICIS assessment certificate application for a chemical that is a “designated fluorinated.” Designated fluorinated chemicals are a subset of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that capture the PFAS chemicals of highest concern to human health and the environment, including longer chain PFAS chemicals that are similar to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS). AICIS assesses the health and environmental risks of designated fluorinated chemicals that are not on the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals (the Inventory) after an application for an assessment certificate is submitted through the form in AICIS Business Services. The chemical can be manufactured or imported into Australia only if AICIS issues an assessment certificate. At this time, to obtain the full set of information requirements for assessment certificate applications for designated fluorinated chemicals, potential applicants must contact AICIS for guidance about the information needed for their application. According to AICIS, this has led to requirements being communicated to an applicant as an information request after a certificate application has been submitted. Before improving transparency by adding the requirements to the application form and publishing them, AICIS seeks comment on whether an applicant will be able to understand them clearly. AICIS states that it expects the updated application form to affect a very small number of applicants. There have only been two applicants for assessment certificates for designated fluorinated chemicals since AICIS began in July 2020. Comments on the information requirements are due April 8, 2025.
CANADA
Canada Releases Final State Of PFAS Report And Proposed Risk Management Approach, Proposes To Add PFAS To CEPA Schedule 1, Part 2: On March 5, 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced the availability of its final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (State of PFAS Report) and proposed risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers. The State of PFAS Report concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment. To address these risks, Canada proposed on March 8, 2025, to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). ECCC states that it will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to protect better firefighters and the environment. Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. ECCC notes that this will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles. ECCC states that it will publish a final decision on the proposed addition of 131 individual PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with reporting to take place by June 2026 for PFAS releases that occurred during the 2025 calendar year. ECCC states that these data will improve its understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help it evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances. Comments on the proposed risk management approach and the proposed order to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to CEPA Schedule 1 Part 2 are due May 7, 2025. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.
Canada Posts Guidance Materials For Reporting To The Federal Plastics Registry: On April 20, 2024, Canada published a Canada Gazette notice that will require companies (including resin manufacturers, service providers, and producers of plastic products) to report annually on the quantity and types of plastic they manufacture, import, and place on the market. Reporting will begin in September 2025 for Phase 1, requiring reporting on plastic placed on the market in three categories for the 2024 calendar year. ECCC has posted the following guidance materials and resources on its web page on the Federal Plastics Registry (FPR):
Guide for Reporting to the FPR — Phase 1: ECCC has prepared a guidance document to provide assistance in responding to the notice. ECCC notes that this version of the document is focused on Phase 1 reporting requirements (reports due in 2025 on 2024 data). It provides a general overview of the reporting requirements, as well as additional guidance materials that include tools such as calculation methods and other aids.
Foreign Supplier Letter: When responding to the notice, reporters are required to provide information that their organization possesses or to which they may be reasonably expected to have access. ECCC notes that more detailed information on the plastic composition in products and packaging may be available from the supply chain. According to ECCC, suppliers may have information of which reporters are unaware. Any person requiring more detailed information on the plastic composition of their products is required to contact their suppliers. To that end, a Government of Canada letter for communicating with foreign suppliers is available. The letter may help reporters obtain information from foreign suppliers to respond to the notice. The letter is available in English, French, Chinese (simplified), and Spanish. To receive a copy of the letter, e-mail [email protected] with the subject line “Foreign Supplier Letter” and include the languages of the letters requested.
User guides for using the online reporting platform: ECCC states that several user guides have been prepared to help users use the FPR’s new reporting platform. These user guides are available on the new reporting platform or upon request. To obtain copies, submit a request by e-mail to [email protected].
ECCC has also posted frequently asked questions (FAQ) regarding the FPR.
CHILE
Chile Releases List Of Hazardous Substances For Industrial Use, Begins Notification For Hazardous Substances For Non-Industrial Use: Chile has released a list of hazardous substances for industrial use that were notified by the September 30, 2024, extended deadline. The list is the first of a four-part national inventory of chemicals under Decree 57/2021, which approves the regulations on the classification, labeling, and notification of chemical substances and mixtures, established a national chemicals framework, and implemented the seventh revision of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The regulations apply to manufacturers and importers of chemical substances and mixtures that are not already regulated by other regulations, exempting pharmaceutical products, food products for human or animal consumption, cosmetic products, pesticide residues in food, and hazardous waste. Hazardous substances for industrial use that are not listed on the national inventory are considered new substances and must be notified. The list is available on the Ministry of Environment’s (MMA) chemical substances notification platform website. Access is available upon request to MMA. On February 9, 2025, Chile began accepting notifications for hazardous substances for non-industrial use. Notifications are due August 30, 2025.
CHINA
China Holds Public Consultation On Draft Law On Safety Of Hazardous Chemicals: China’s National People’s Congress began a public consultation on December 26, 2024, on the draft Law on the Safety of Hazardous Chemicals. The draft law would apply to the production, transport, storage, use, operation, and disposal of hazardous chemicals. It would define hazardous chemicals as substances with highly toxic, explosive, flammable, or combustion-supporting properties that pose risks to humans, facilities, or the environment. If enacted, it will replace Decree 591, which establishes a hazardous chemicals information management system, implements electronic identification, and initiates whole lifecycle information management of hazardous chemicals. Comments on the draft law were due January 23, 2025.
EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
CLP Amendments Entered Into Force In December 2024: Amendments to the EU’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP) entered into force on December 10, 2024. According to the European Commission’s (EC) website, the revisions are intended to enhance chemical safety and information transparency:
Online stores will have to display hazardous properties clearly on their websites;
Labeling will be made simpler by allowing more flexible use of fold-out labels, introducing digital labeling, and improving the legibility of labels;
Advertisements and online offers will have to contain information on chemical hazards, facilitating informed choices by consumers and the development of a market for sustainable consumer chemical products;
For the first time, there will be clarity on the safe sale of household chemicals via the refill stations, contributing to reducing packaging and packaging waste;
There will be a more user-friendly inventory of substances notified by industry, benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises (SME);
Explicit rules for classifying complex substances (those containing more than one constituent) will be introduced, while taking account of the specificities of natural complex substances, such as essential oils; and
Poison centers will receive more comprehensive information for medical emergencies, especially from cross-border distribution.
ECHA Adds Five Chemicals To The Candidate List And Updates One Entry: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced on January 21, 2025, that it added five chemicals to the Candidate List of substances of very high concern (SVHC) and updated one entry:
Substance Name
Reason for Inclusion
Examples of Uses
6-[(C10-C13)-alkyl-(branched, unsaturated)-2,5-dioxopyrrolidin-1-yl]hexanoic acid
Toxic for reproduction (Article 57(c))
Lubricants, greases, release products, and metal working fluids
O,O,O-triphenyl phosphorothioate
Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) (Article 57(d))
Lubricants and greases
Octamethyltrisiloxane
Very persistent, very bioaccumulative (vPvB) (Article 57(e))
Manufacture and/or formulation of: cosmetics, personal/health care products, pharmaceuticals, washing and cleaning products, coating and non-metal surface treatment, and in sealants and adhesives
Perfluamine
vPvB (Article 57(e))
Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and optical equipment and machinery and vehicles
Reaction mass of: triphenylthiophosphate and tertiary butylated phenyl derivatives
PBT (Article 57(d))
No active registrations
Updated entry
Tris(4-nonylphenyl, branched and linear) phosphite
Endocrine disrupting properties (Article 57(f) — environment)
Polymers, adhesives, sealants, and coatings
ECHA states that its Member State Committee confirmed the addition of these chemicals to the Candidate List, which now has 247 entries. ECHA notes that some entries are groups of chemicals, so the overall number of impacted chemicals is higher. Candidate List chemicals may be placed on the Authorization List in the future. If a substance is on that list, its use will be prohibited unless companies apply for authorization and the EC authorizes them to continue its use.
Under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH), companies have legal obligations when their substance is included — either on its own, in mixtures, or in articles — on the Candidate List. Suppliers of articles containing a Candidate List substance above a concentration of 0.1 percent (weight by weight) must provide their customers and consumers information on how to use the article safely. ECHA notes that consumers have the right to ask suppliers whether the products they buy contain SVHCs. Importers and producers of articles must notify ECHA if their article contains a Candidate List substance within six months from the date it has been included on the list (January 21, 2025). EU and European Economic Area (EEA) suppliers of substances on the Candidate List, supplied either on their own or in mixtures, must update the safety data sheet (SDS) provided to customers.
Under the Waste Framework Directive, companies also have to notify ECHA if the articles they produce contain SVHCs in a concentration above 0.1 percent (weight by weight). ECHA will publish this notification in its database of substances of concern in products (SCIP). Under the EU Ecolabel Regulation, products containing SVHCs cannot have the ecolabel award.
EU Advocate General Recommends Overturning Decision Annulling Harmonized Classification And Labeling Of Titanium Dioxide: On February 6, 2025, the EU Advocate General (EU AG) recommended that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) overturn the 2022 decision of the General Court annulling the 2019 harmonized classification and labeling of titanium dioxide as a carcinogenic substance by inhalation in certain powder forms. As reported in our December 6, 2022, memorandum, the court annulled the EC’s decision to classify titanium dioxide as a suspected human carcinogen. The French government and the EC appealed the decision, arguing that the court exceeded the limits of permissible judicial review of an EC decision and that the court incorrectly interpreted the concept of “intrinsic properties” as it appears in the CLP. The EU AG proposes that the ECJ:
Set aside the November 2022 judgment in CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission (T‑279/20, T‑283/20 and T‑288/20, EU:T:2022:725);
Refer the case back to the General Court for the resolution of the remaining pleas in law; and
Order that the costs be reserved.
The ECJ is expected to issue its decision later this year. More information is available in our March 11, 2025, blog item.
Packaging And Packaging Waste Regulation Enters Into Force: On February 11, 2025, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation entered into force. According to the Council of the EU’s December 16, 2024, press release, the regulation sets 2030 and 2040 targets for a minimum percentage of recycled content (up to 65 percent for single use plastic bottles by 2040); minimizes the weight and volume of packaging and avoids unnecessary packaging; and minimizes substances of concern, including restricting placing on the market food contact packaging containing PFAS if they exceed certain thresholds. The Council notes that labeling, marking, and information requirements (e.g., on material composition or recycled content) should facilitate consumer sorting and consumer choices.
ECHA announced on February 11, 2025, that it will prepare a study identifying chemicals of concern in packaging and related components assessing how these chemicals affect their safety, reuse, and recycling. The EC’s request to ECHA states that it expects the study to support it in:
Identifying chemicals of concern present in packaging and packaging components that negatively affect the reuse and recycling of materials and impact chemical safety. In addition, the study will investigate the need for future restrictions under REACH for the identified chemicals of concern that can impact chemical safety;
Establishing labeling on packaging that marks the chemicals of concern to be adopted by January 1, 2030, in the form of an Implementing Act;
Assessing the packaging recyclability on chemicals of concern that affect negatively the reuse and recycling of packaging and packaging components; and
Assessing the need to modify the provisions related to PFAS content four years from the date of application of the Regulation.
Under the regulation, ECHA is to provide its input to the EC by the end of September 2026. Based on ECHA’s report, the EC will consider appropriate follow-up measures, including possible restrictions on the use of substances in packaging materials that pose health or environmental risks. According to ECHA, these restrictions “will follow the existing REACH restriction process.”
EC Calls For Evidence For Evaluation Of Cosmetic Products Regulation: The EC issued a call for evidence on February 21, 2025, for an evaluation/fitness check of the Cosmetics Products Regulation (CPR). According to the EC, the evaluation is expected to provide evidence of how the CPR has been applied, whether it has delivered on its objectives, and whether it remains fit for purpose. The EC states that the evaluation will investigate the current scope of the CPR, the definitions used, the application of the generic risk approach to ingredients with potentially higher risk for human health, and labeling provisions, as well as the main trends in international trade and the external competitiveness of the EU industry. It will also examine whether the CPR is fit to support and enable international convergence with other jurisdictions. The EC notes that the evaluation will include areas for improvement, including any potential for simplification and burden reduction, and will help the EC determine whether revision of the CPR is needed. Comments are due March 21, 2025.
EC Legislative Package Would Simplify Corporate Sustainability Reporting: The EC announced on February 25, 2025, that it has adopted a new package of proposals to simplify EU rules, boost competitiveness, and unlock additional investment capacity. The package brings together proposals in a number of related legislative fields, including sustainable finance reporting, sustainability due diligence, EU Taxonomy, carbon border adjustment mechanism, and European investment programs. Specifically, proposed revisions concerning sustainability reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and EU Taxonomy) include:
Removing around 80 percent of companies from the scope of CSRD, focusing the sustainability reporting obligations on the largest companies that are more likely to have the biggest impacts on people and the environment;
Ensuring that sustainability reporting requirements on large companies do not burden smaller companies in their value chains;
Postponing by two years (until 2028) the reporting requirements for companies currently in the scope of CSRD and that are required to report as of 2026 or 2027;
Reducing the burden of the EU Taxonomy reporting obligations and limiting it to the largest companies (corresponding to the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)), while keeping the possibility to report voluntarily for the other large companies within the future scope of the CSRD;
Introducing the option of reporting on activities that are partially aligned with the EU Taxonomy, fostering a gradual environmental transition of activities over time, in line with the aim to scale up transition finance to help companies on their path towards sustainability;
Introducing a financial materiality threshold for the Taxonomy reporting and reducing the reporting templates by around 70 percent; and
Introducing simplifications to the most complex “Do no Significant harm” (DNSH) criteria for pollution prevention and control related to the use and presence of chemicals that apply horizontally to all economic sectors under the EU Taxonomy — “as a first step in revising and simplifying all such DNSH criteria.”
Proposed changes in the area of sustainability due diligence include:
Simplifying sustainability due diligence requirements so that companies in scope avoid unnecessary complexities and costs, e.g., by focusing systematic due diligence requirements on direct business partners and by reducing the frequency of periodic assessments and monitoring of their partners from annual to five years, with ad hoc assessments where necessary;
Reducing burdens and trickle-down effects for SME and small mid-caps by limiting the amount of information that may be requested as part of the value chain mapping by large companies;
Further increasing the harmonization of due diligence requirements to ensure a level playing field across the EU;
Removing the EU civil liability conditions while preserving victims’ rights to full compensation for damage caused by non-compliance, and protecting companies against over-compensation, under the civil liability regimes of EU member states; and
Giving companies more time to prepare to comply with the new requirements by postponing the application of the sustainability due diligence requirements for the largest companies by one year (to July 26, 2028), while advancing the adoption of the guidelines by one year (to July 2026).
The EC posted questions and answers (Q&A) on the legislative package.
ECHA Updates Annual Evaluation Statistics And Recommendations To Registrants On Improving Dossiers: ECHA announced on February 26, 2025, that it has updated its annual statistics on evaluation progress. According to ECHA, between 2009 and 2024, it checked the compliance of 15,500 REACH registrations, representing 23 percent of all submitted registration dossiers and covering 3,200 substances. For high-volume chemicals registered at quantities of 100 metric tons or more per year, ECHA has checked 34 percent of the registrations. ECHA notes that based on the evaluations, it updated its recommendations to registrants on how to improve their dossiers.
In 2024, ECHA carried out 313 compliance checks, covering almost 2,000 registrations and addressing 272 individual substances. ECHA notes that these checks focused on those registration dossiers that may have data gaps. As a result, ECHA sent 208 decisions to companies, requesting additional data to clarify long-term effects of chemicals on human health or the environment. ECHA states that it also examined 161 testing proposals and sent out 92 decisions, addressing the tests proposed by industry to ensure the safe use of the substance.
To follow up information requests sent to companies, ECHA states that it checks whether the provided information complies with the REACH requirements. In 2024, ECHA concluded this evaluation for 241 substances. According to ECHA, in about 70 percent of the cases, companies provided the requested information. ECHA notified the remaining 30 percent to EU member states for enforcement and will follow up. ECHA also adopted three substance evaluation decisions prepared by EU member states, requesting further information to assess the safety of substances of potential concern.
FRANCE
Parliament Passes Bill That Would Prohibit Intentionally Added PFAS In Certain Consumer Products: On February 20, 2025, the National Assembly passed legislation that would prohibit the following items containing PFAS as of January 1, 2026:
Cosmetic products;
Wax; and
Textile clothing products, footwear, and waterproofing agents for textile clothing products and footwear intended for consumer use.
The bill would ban in 2030 any textile products containing PFAS, excluding textile products necessary for essential uses.
Tariffs and Other Regulatory Charges on Imported Goods
This is the first installment in a series of pieces in which members of the Womble Bond Dickinson Global Trade Advisors (GTA) team will review a number of current issues in international trade regulation. The authors will discuss strategies for companies to stay aware of change in this dynamic area of law and achieve their business goals, while avoiding regulatory noncompliance costs.
In this first piece, we will review the regulatory landscape of, and recent practice regarding, tariffs and other regulatorily mandated charges on imported goods including, in particular, antidumping duties (ADD) and countervailing duties (CVD).
Tariffs
Changes to U.S. tariff rates have been highlighted in the news lately as the Trump administration seeks to use increased tariffs to achieve a variety of stated aims. The Womble international trade team recently published a piece reviewing recent tariff rate change announcements and implementation. It is clear that we are in a time of dramatic change to U.S. tariff law and policy.
Tariffs, of course, are taxes charged on imported goods at the point of entry into a customs territory. Since the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, the U.S. and other member states have typically complied with the provisions of GATT Article II, which obligate all member states to publish and bind themselves to a tariff schedule. This schedule lists the tariff rates to be applied to all goods imported into the country, using an item classification system called the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Countries periodically negotiate with each other on tariff rates and apply the nondiscrimination provisions elsewhere found in the GATT (and since 1995 enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO)), in order to lower tariffs generally.
This system has overall been quite effective in lowering tariffs around the world. For example, in 1947, the average U.S. applied tariff rate was around 30%. Today it is around 2.3%. This doesn’t include the various free trade agreements to which the U.S is a member, which frequently allow goods to be imported into the U.S. tariff-free. In fact, roughly 70% of imports enter the U.S. tariff-free.
In U.S. domestic law, Congress has essentially statutorily delegated the setting of tariff rates to the President. Various executive branch agencies play a role in exercising these powers, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of the Treasury (TREAS), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In a number of statutes, Congress has granted the President extraordinary powers to set tariffs in response to dynamic changes in international affairs. These include particularly:
The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which gives the President authority to regulate trade with countries considered adversaries;
The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which empowers the President to negotiate bilateral trade agreements and adjust tariffs reciprocally without the need for direct Congressional approval.
The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232, which allows the President to adjust imports, including imposing increased tariffs, if the DOC determines that imports from a particular country threaten national security;
The Trade Act of 1974, Section 301, which gives the President broad authority to take action, including imposing increased tariffs, to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements and to address unfair foreign trade practices; and
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which grants the President broad powers to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the U.S. that has a foreign source;
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which reaffirmed and expanded the President’s authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and provided additional tools to address unfair trade practices.
The Customs Modernization Act of 1993 (Mod Act), which, while primarily aimed at simplifying trade procedures, also strengthened the President’s enforcement capabilities regarding trade facilitation and tariff adjustments.
The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA), commonly known as “fast track authority,” which allows the President to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendments, effectively expediting tariff-related adjustments within the context of broader trade agreements.
U.S. tariff practice has changed considerably since 2017 and become much more dynamic than in previous decades. Shortly after coming into office in 2017, President Trump ordered an unfair trade investigation into China’s technology transfer and intellectual property laws. These investigations culminated in the imposition of increased tariffs on $370 billion of imports from China – roughly 73% of all U.S. imports from China – of from 10% to 25%.
Similarly, the Trump administration in 2017 also began an investigation on the national security implications of the importation of steel and aluminum products. This investigation led to increased U.S. tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum products by 10%-25%. While some adjustments to these targeted tariff increases were made during the years of the Biden administration, such as reinstating certain product exclusions to alleviate specific industry concerns, the essential structure and substance of these tariff increases has remained in effect to the present.
Since his return to office in January 2025, President Trump has announced or proposed a number of new targeted tariff increases, though so far the application of many of these tariffs has been deferred. The key stated objectives of these additional tariffs are to protect domestic industry, reduce dependance on China, counter unfair trade practices, enhance national security, and to establish strategic leverage for negotiations.
Tariffs are typically paid by an importing company at the time of customs clearance. This company may or may not be closely associated with other companies in the supply, manufacturing, and retail chain. This creates complex interactions between and among companies in the supply chain and can result in the cost of the tariff being passed on among companies, possibly affecting the price of the goods at point of sale to consumers.
At present, U.S. trade regulations include, unless specifically waived, a de minimis rule which allows imported goods delivered in the U.S. with a value less than $800 to enter the country tariff free. This has allowed direct shipment of packages by some foreign exporters to U.S. consumers duty free. Goods that enter under the de minimis rule are generally not subject to Section 301 or Section 232 tariffs.
Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD)
Another source of regulatorily mandated charges on imports of goods, so-called trade remedies, comes from regulations concerning dumping and subsidies, which are typically classed as unfair trade practices. The U.S. government regulates these unfair trade practices through a complex system of investigations and determinations through an interagency process, that can result in the imposition of ADD or CVD on imports, which apply in addition to any tariffs that may be due.
The primary statutory authority for AD and CVD measures is the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by subsequent legislation, and as implemented through regulations issued by the DOC, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), and the CBP. The process leading to the imposition of ADD or CVD begins with petitions filed with the DOC and ITC by U.S. industries or, in some cases, self-initiated by DOC. The post-petition process is different in the ADD and CVD contexts, but both follow a similar parallel process through which both the DOC and ITC complete different parts of the investigation. The DOC ultimately determines whether dumping or unfair subsidies exist and calculates the economic impact of those actions. The USITC determines whether U.S. domestic industry has suffered a material injury stemming from this unfair trade practice. Then the DOC determines whether AD or CVD should be ordered to be applied to the subject imports in order to counteract this injury and calculates the amount of the duties. CBP then enforces and collects the duties as ordered by the DOC. DOC then conducts regular reviews of the AD/CVD orders.
In recent years there has been increased activity in both petitions and investigations into dumping and subsidies. ADD/CVD orders have varied by country and by commodity. Recent subjects of investigations include:
Solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam;
Active anode material from China;
A herbicide from China and India;
Brake drums from China and Turkey; and
Hexamethylenetetramine from China and India.
Metals (Steel and Aluminum): Metals are the single largest category under AD/CVD protection. The majority of all current AD/CVD orders are on iron and steel imports. As of 2017, for example, 40% of all U.S. AD/CVD orders in place were on steel products. This trend has continued – by 2024, there were over 300 active orders on steel and steel-related products alone. The steel industry has benefited from these measures through reduced import competition; the American Iron and Steel Institute noted the prevalence of unfairly traded steel imports and stressed the importance of vigorous enforcement of AD/CVD laws for the sector. Aluminum products have also been targeted (e.g. aluminum extrusions, sheet, foil from China and other countries). After duties on aluminum foil from China were imposed, U.S. producers saw tangible relief: Chinese aluminum foil imports dropped by 64% and domestic investment in foil production increased by $169 million within a year. This suggests AD/CVD actions in metals achieved their intended effect of curbing unfair imports and bolstering U.S. industry.
Further, the DOC in particular has expanded its authority to apply its Particular Market Situations (PMS) doctrine, which allows it to adjust cost calculations when foreign market distortions are present. It has also increased its scrutiny of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and indirect subsidies, particularly in non-market economies (NMEs) like China.
ADD and CVD are increasingly being used as part of the U.S. government’s focus on addressing what it considers to be unfair trade practices by other countries, which harm U.S. industries.
Common Commodities Subject to ADD and CVD Duties:
Steel and Aluminum Products
Steel pipes
Aluminum extrusions
Consumer Goods
Mattresses
Wood Cabinets / vanities
Industrial and Manufacturing Goods
Tires
Paper Products
Summary
The past few years have seen a marked increase in the imposition of tariffs, ADD/CVD, and other regulatorily mandated charges on imported goods. For importers and companies all along the supply, manufacturing, and retail chain, these import charges are important to understand and monitor.
What can you do to keep your business safe from noncompliance costs?
The most important step businesses can take is to practice informed Compliance. They can do this by staying current on changes to tariff rates and ADD/CVD duties which apply to goods in their supply chain. Companies should identify in detail the actors, both upstream and downstream, in their supply chain, and the goods that may be impacted by changes in tariffs and impositions of ADD/CVD. Maintaining this awareness of changes and supply chain dynamics can help in potentially identifying alternative suppliers of goods and other supply chain services.
Companies can also be active in making sure that HTS classifications, and values of imports are being calculated/assigned correctly, as these assessments can significantly affect duties imposed. They can investigate the possibility of use of free-trade zones, or bonded warehouses to minimize or postpone duty payments. And they can make sure they have a good working relationship and good communications with brokers and forwarders.
Partnering with industry experts and regulatory specialists can help with all of these tasks.
Brief Overview of Importer Compliance with AD/CVD Requirements
Importers must ensure compliance with antidumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD) to avoid penalties and shipment delays. Key compliance steps include:
Determine Product Coverage
Review U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determinations to check if a product is subject to AD/CVD orders.
Use HTSUS classification and scope rulings to verify applicability.
Declare AD/CVD Properly
Ensure the correct entry type is used in CBP filings (e.g., Type 03 for AD/CVD entries).
Provide accurate manufacturer and exporter details, as duty rates vary by producer.
Deposit Estimated Duties
Importers must pay cash deposits at the rates determined by Commerce when goods enter the U.S.
These deposits are subject to annual administrative reviews, which may result in refunds or additional duty liability.
Maintain Records & Conduct Internal Reviews
Keep detailed records of purchase orders, invoices, shipping documents, and communications related to AD/CVD compliance.
Periodically review imports to identify any misclassification risks.
Request Scope Rulings if Necessary
If uncertainty exists regarding AD/CVD applicability, importers can request a scope ruling from the Department of Commerce.
Monitor Ongoing Changes
Stay updated on new orders, reviews, and rate changes published in the Federal Register and CBP updates.
Proactive compliance reduces risk, prevents delays, and ensures smooth trade operations under U.S. AD/CVD laws.
5-Year Prison Term for Counterfeiting Burberry in China
On March 13, 2025, the Shanghai Procuratorate Third Branch announced that the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court upheld a 5-year prison term and 2 million RMB fine for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks belonging to Burberry. In 2021, the defendant, Gong XX, resumed operating an online store “XXX Overseas Shopping” and started selling counterfeit Burberry brand clothing. The cost of making a single piece of clothing involved in the case ranged from 500 to 700 RMB, but the selling price could reach 3,500 RMB per piece. From 2021 to 2023, Gong sold the clothing involved in the case in his own online store and WeChat Moments, with sales reaching more than 4 million RMB.
Counterfeit clothing involved.
In February 2023, the Jing’an Temple Police Station received a report from the public that they spent thousands of RMB to buy a brand-name windbreaker from the “XXX Overseas Shopping” online store, but found that it was a fake. Based on the evidence, the public security organs quickly launched an investigation and arrested the suspect Gong. Afterwards, the Jing’an District Procuratorate indicted Gong at the Jing’an District Court in accordance with the law on the grounds that Gong committed the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. In November, the court made a first-instance judgment, sentencing Gong to five years in prison for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and a fine of RMB 2 million. Gong appealed to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court. In February 2024, the court ruled on the second instance of the counterfeit registered trademark case handled by the Third Branch, dismissing Gong’s appeal and upholding the original judgment.
On February 23, 2024, the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court held a second-instance trial of the case, and the prosecutor in charge of the Third Branch attended the court.
During the trial, Gong argued that his “Knight” graphic was different from the mark registered by Burberry. However, the prosecutor pointed out that identical trademarks include not only “completely identical” but also “basically indistinguishable.” The Burberry trademark has been widely used and promoted for a long time, and has a high market visibility and strong distinctiveness. Comparing Gong’s counterfeit logo with the registered trademark of the right holder, there is basically no difference in the overall shape and arrangement of elements, with only slight differences in individual lines, which makes it impossible for ordinary consumers to distinguish them in appearance, thus misleading the public. Therefore, the “Knight” graphic trademark used by Gong can be identified as “a trademark identical to the registered trademark”.
During the trial, Gong also argued that the “BURBERRY BLACK LABEL” text trademark has not been used in China for several years, and the series of clothing is only sold in a certain country and has been discontinued. Based on this, he believed that reference should be made to the relevant provisions in the civil field where infringers of trademarks “not used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons” may not be liable for compensation, and thus his counterfeiting behavior should not be considered a crime in the criminal field.
The prosecuting attorney pointed out that China’s criminal law currently does not have special provisions for the above situation. According to the certification letter issued by Burberry and the series of trademark registrations, “BURBERRY BLACK LABEL” is a legally registered trademark in China and is within the validity period, approved for use on clothing products, and should be protected by law. At the same time, the products of the involved text trademark still circulate in the secondary market in China, and the “BURBERRY BLACK LABEL” text trademark still plays the core function of identifying the brand.
In addition, “BURBERRY” itself is also a registered trademark of Burberry. The arrangement of the “BURBERRY BLACK LABEL” word trademark is: “BURBERRY” and “BLACK LABEL” are arranged in separate lines, and the “BURBERRY” word is enlarged, bolded and highlighted. “BLACK LABEL” itself only means “black label”, which is a common industry term for distinguishing product categories and is not a distinctive element of the trademark. According to regulations, if only the common name of the product, model number and other elements lacking distinctive features are added to the registered trademark, and it does not affect the distinctive features of the registered trademark, it can be determined as “a trademark identical to its registered trademark.”
The original announcement is available here (Chinese only).
Considerations for Navigating the New Alien Registration Process: Effective April 11, 2025
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced expected changes to the registration requirements for foreign nationals in the United States. Under a newly issued Interim Final Rule (IFR), noncitizens who have not complied with registration mandates outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will now face enhanced enforcement efforts. Effective April 11, 2025, the updated process introduces a digital registration system and heightened compliance obligations that employers and foreign nationals alike should carefully review.
While this rule applies broadly to foreign nationals residing in the United States for more than 30 days, and many foreign nationals have already complied, certain populations—including Canadian visitors and U.S. visa holders with young children—should understand specific implications of the rule and how the new processes might impact their travel or stay in the United States.
What the Rule Requires
The INA has long mandated that noncitizens register with the government, submit biometric data, and carry proof of registration. The IFR strengthens these requirements and fills gaps in existing enforcement mechanisms by introducing:
Form G-325R for Registration: DHS has designated Form G-325R (Biographic Information—Registration) as the official alien registration document for noncitizens who have not previously registered. Registrants must complete the form through their myUSCIS online account.
Mandatory Biometrics Collection: Completion of Form G-325R triggers a biometrics appointment at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC). Registrants must provide:
Fingerprints
Photographs
Signatures
Individuals under the age of 14 generally do not need to submit fingerprints, but registration compliance is still required.
Proof of Alien Registration Document: Upon successfully registering and completing biometrics, DHS will issue a downloadable proof of alien registration document through the registrant’s myUSCIS account. Noncitizens aged 18 or older will be required to carry this document at all times while in the United States as evidence of compliance with registration requirements.
Failure to register, attend biometrics appointments, or carry proof of registration may result in penalties, including fines up to $5,000 or six months in jail.
Who Is Impacted?
This rule applies to various groups of foreign nationals, including lawful permanent residents, visa holders, foreign nationals present without inspection, and others. Many noncitizens have already complied with this rule by being issued an I-94 upon entering or changing their status in the United States. However, one notable group affected by this rule includes Canadian visitors entering the United States without visas.
Impact on Canadian Visitors Without a Visa
Canadian nationals often benefit from unique travel arrangements when visiting the United States for business or tourism purposes. In most cases, Canadians entering through land ports of entry for short-term stays are not required to present a visa or obtain an arrival/departure record (Form I-94). However, the new alien registration requirements specifically affect Canadians who remain in the United States for more than 30 days without formal evidence of registration.
Registration Requirements for Non-Visa Canadian Visitors Staying Over 30 Days
Canadians entering the United States at land borders who do not receive an I-94 form upon entry must proactively register if their stay exceeds 30 days. This is a key change from past practices, where such visitors were often exempt from alien registration. To comply:
Create an Account and Submit Form G-325R: Canadians staying in the United States longer than 30 days must complete Form G-325R through the myUSCIS platform.
Biometric Appointment Compliance: Completing the registration form will initiate a biometrics appointment, which must be attended to complete registration. Canadians under 14 years old may be exempt from fingerprinting but still need to register with parental or legal guardian assistance.
Proof of Registration: Canadians over the age of 18 staying in the United States beyond 30 days must carry Proof of Alien Registration at all times while in the country.
Short-Term Visitors Remain Exempt
The new rule does not impose registration obligations on Canadian visitors staying fewer than 30 days. Business or tourism visitors admitted under ESTA or B-1 or B-2 classifications for short trips can depart within the 30-day window without taking any additional steps.
Key Employer Considerations
For employers across the United States, including those hiring foreign workers who fall under these new requirements, compliance efforts may need adjustment. Specific considerations include:
Accommodation for Worker Biometrics Appointments: Employees impacted by new biometrics requirements may need time off work to attend scheduled appointments. Employers should ensure uniform policies are applied to avoid potential discrimination.
Enforcement Risks: DHS has emphasized that alien registration noncompliance will be an enforcement priority. Employers in industries with large foreign national workforces should be aware.
Notify Long-term Business Visitors: Information about the registration requirement should be available for foreign business visitors.
Preparing for Compliance
The changes introduced under the IFR reflect DHS’s commitment to enforcing longstanding alien registration requirements more comprehensively. Canadian visitors without visas, as well as other foreign nationals, must understand their obligations and take steps to comply.
Arbitration Act 2025 Updates UK’s Dispute Resolution Framework
Go-To Guide:
The UK Arbitration Act 2025 seeks to modernise arbitration law through a series of targeted reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996:
—
New statutory rule establishes arbitration agreement’s governing law as the law of the seat, absent express agreement.
—
Arbitrators gain express power to summarily dismiss claims or defences with no real prospect of success.
—
Codifies arbitrators’ duty to disclose potential conflicts of interest on an ongoing basis.
—
Court powers extended to issue orders against third parties in support of arbitration proceedings.
—
Equips emergency arbitrators with extended enforcement powers.
The Arbitration Act 2025 (the 2025 Act) received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025. This new legislation introduces a series of targeted reforms to modernise and enhance the Arbitration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act), which has underpinned England’s arbitration offering for the past 30 years. The changes the 2025 Act introduce seek to reinforce and preserve London’s status as one of the world’s leading international arbitration seats.
Background
The 2025 Act follows a multi-year review process conducted by the Law Commission, which included two consultations and a final report containing proposed amendments to ensure the 1996 Act was fit for purpose.
Arbitration Act 2025’s Key Changes
The five key changes and their practical implications include:
1.
Governing Law of Arbitration Agreements: The 2025 Act establishes a clear rule for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement. In the absence of an express agreement between the parties, the governing law will be the same as the law of the seat of arbitration. This new statutory rule seeks to address a practical challenge often encountered in English-seated arbitrations, where the governing law of the main contract is of a jurisdiction that is not arbitration-friendly, yet there is no express choice of law for the arbitration agreement. The new statutory rule circumvents the common law position the Supreme Court previously adopted in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38. There is a limited exception to the statutory rule’s application for certain types of investment treaty arbitration clauses.
2.
Summary Disposal Powers: Arbitrators are now expressly empowered to summarily dismiss claims or defences that have no real prospect of success. The tribunal may issue an award on a summary basis, disposing of a claim/defence or a particular issue upon either party’s application, provided that the parties have not agreed to exclude this power. The 2025 Act refrains from prescribing a detailed procedure, instead stipulating only the requirement that all parties be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, thereby ensuring flexibility in its implementation. Overall, the new provisions for summary disposal contained within the 2025 Act seek to align arbitration procedures more closely with those of the English courts by empowering tribunals to filter out claims or defences that lack legal or factual merit at an early stage, without requiring a full, costly, and time-consuming hearing.
3.
Arbitrators’ Duty of Disclosure: The 2025 Act establishes a statutory obligation on arbitrators to disclose, on an ongoing basis, any circumstances that might reasonably raise justifiable doubts about their impartiality. This statutory duty now requires arbitrators to reveal both what they actually know and what they reasonably ought to have known regarding potential conflicts of interest. Although the 1996 Act did not previously include a statutory duty of disclosure, the Supreme Court did determine that such a duty existed in common law (Halliburton v Chubb [2020] UKSC 48). The 2025 Act therefore seeks to promote transparency by codifying this duty.
4.
Court Powers in Support of Arbitration: The court’s authority to issue orders supporting arbitration proceedings pursuant to section 44 of 1996 Act (including freezing orders or orders in respect of the preservation of evidence) has been extended to include orders against third parties, as opposed to only against parties to the arbitration. This change reinforces the court’s role in ensuring the arbitral process’ effectiveness and allows the courts to target other persons connected with an arbitration. This extension of the court’s power may be deployed in cases involving fraud, asset dissipation, or when a third party, such as a bank or supplier, holds important evidence.
5.
Emergency Arbitrators: It is common practice among the most popular sets of arbitration rules to appoint emergency arbitrators to make interim decisions before establishing the full tribunal. In light of this trend, the 2025 Act introduces new provisions that enable parties to enforce orders made by emergency arbitrators when the relevant arbitration rules allow their appointment. These new provisions allow the emergency arbitrators, where a party has failed to comply with the emergency arbitrator’s order or directions, to make and enforce a peremptory order with the same authority as a fully constituted tribunal. This creates a clearer framework for interim relief in arbitration and equips emergency arbitrators with enforcement powers that were previously exclusive to fully constituted tribunals.
Takeaways
The changes the 2025 Act introduces will take effect through relevant regulations as soon as practicable. However, these changes will not affect (i) arbitral proceedings commenced before the relevant changes come into force, (ii) court proceedings related to arbitral proceedings commenced before the relevant changes come into force, and (iii) any other court proceedings commenced before the relevant changes come into force.
Overall, the reforms represent targeted refinements to England’s existing framework. They seek to enhance expeditiousness, fairness, efficiency, and legal certainty in the arbitration process, all while maintaining the core principles of the 1996 Act that have served this jurisdiction for three decades. Fundamentally, the changes aim to reinforce London’s status as a leading arbitral seat in the international arbitration landscape.
Oleksii Izotov also contributed to this article.
UK Financial Regulators Drop Diversity and Inclusion Rules but Keep Culture in Focus
On 11 March 2025, the UK’s financial regulators confirmed they have decided not to move forward with proposed diversity and inclusion (D&I) rules for financial firms. This decision in a letter by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and a letter by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) marks the end of a long-running debate that has been ongoing since 2023. However, while formal D&I improvement measures are off the table, culture remains firmly in the regulators’ sights, with new rules on non-financial misconduct expected by June 2025.
No New Rules to Improve D&I
The decision not to introduce new D&I regulations follows industry pushback, set against the global landscape where D&I has become a polarized topic in some jurisdictions, including the U.S.. Regulators initially aimed to mandate D&I policies, setting out that diversity was crucial to improving governance, decision-making, and reducing groupthink risks. However, firms raised concerns about the administrative burden and costs associated with mandatory requirements, arguing that existing legislation already addresses many aspects of workplace equality and inclusion.
Culture Still on the FCA’s Agenda
Despite the abandonment of new D&I rules, culture within financial firms remains a key focus for the FCA. It has made it clear that it intends to publish new rules on non-financial misconduct by the end of June 2025. This commitment highlights the FCA’s ongoing effort to tackle cultural issues within the sector, including misconduct that falls outside traditional financial violations.
Non-financial misconduct covers a wide range of issues, including harassment and other inappropriate behaviour within the workplace. By maintaining pressure on firms to address these cultural challenges, the FCA is signalling that it will not tolerate harmful practices within UK’s financial services industry.
Firms should take note that non-financial misconduct will soon be in the regulator’s enforcement remit, and proactive steps to build positive, respectful workplace environments are still important.
Chinese Court Again Rules AI-Generated Images Are Eligible for Copyright Protection
On March 7, 2025, the Changshu People’s Court announced that it had ruled that images generated with Artificial Intelligence (AI) are eligible for copyright protection. This is believed to be the second case regarding AI-generated images with the Beijing Internet Court ruled similarly in late 2023. In the instant case, Lin XX generated an image of a half heart in a city waterfront using Midjourney and further used Photoshop to edit the image. An unnamed Changsha real estate company then used the image in a WeChat posting and further built a three-dimensional installation based on the image at one of its developments.
The Court explained that it first reviewed the user agreement of the AI software involved in the case, and clarified that the assets and rights of the pictures produced by using the software service in the Midjourney software user agreement belong to the user, and logged into the creation platform in court to review the login process, user information, and the picture iteration process such as the modification of the prompts. The court held that Lin’s modification of the prompts and the modification of the picture through the image processing software reflected his unique selection and arrangement, and the image generated by this was original and belonged to the works protected by the Copyright Law. The two defendants violated the copyright by disseminating the picture on the Internet without the permission of the copyright owner. At the same time, it was determined that the copyright enjoyed by Lin should be limited to the picture, and the manufacturing of the three-dimensional installation was only based on the image. The real estate company’s design and construction of the corresponding installation did not constitute an infringement of Lin’s copyright. The court then ruled: 1. The infringing party publicly apologized to the plaintiff Lin on its Xiaohongshu [Red Note] account for three consecutive days; 2. The infringing party compensated the plaintiff Lin for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10,000 RMB; 3. The plaintiff Lin’s other claims were rejected. After the first-instance judgment, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
This is the opposite of the decision reached by the U.S. Copyright Office in Zarya of the Dawn (Registration # VAu001480196) that did not recognize copyright in AI-generated images.
The original announcement can be found here (Chinese only).
The BR International Trade Report: March 2025
Recent Developments
U.S. tariffs on Canada and Mexico take effect.
On March 4, President Trump’s tariffs against Canada and Mexico took effect following a one-month pause.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded by levying retaliatory tariffs on C $30 billion (~USD $21 billion) of U.S. goods, which eventually could range up to C $155 billion (USD $108 billion) total, although to date, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum has held off on announcing retaliatory measures.
On March 5, following conversations with leaders in the automotive industry, the Trump Administration announced a one-month pause on tariffs for imported automobiles that comply with the rules of origin under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”).
Shortly thereafter, the administration carved out an exemption for all imports from Canada and Mexico that fall under the USMCA—estimated to account for approximately 38 percent and 50 percent of imports from Canada and Mexico, respectively.
On March 10, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced a 25 percent surcharge on electricity exports to New York, Minnesota, and Michigan. In response, on March 11, President Trump announced the doubling of tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum from 25 percent to 50 percent. Later that day, both parties agreed to suspend these threatened actions.
President Trump doubles tariffs on imports from China. On March 3, President Trump amended Executive Order 14195 (“Imposing Duties to Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain”) to increase tariffs on Chinese goods from 10 percent to 20 percent, effective March 4, 2025. Beijing responded in kind, implementing tariffs on U.S. agricultural imports (including wheat, soybeans, pork, etc.), suspending imports of U.S.-origin lumber, and adding 15 American companies to its export control list and 10 countries to its unreliable entity list. The Chinese Embassy in the United States stated on X, “If war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end.”
President Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum go into force, and trading partners retaliate. On March 12, the United States imposed 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum products, as President Trump had previously promised. The European Union and Canada immediately announced that they would impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. The European Union’s countermeasures are scheduled to come in two phases, a first set of tariffs on $8 billion in goods on April 1, and an $18 billion package sometime in mid-April. At press time, it was being reported that Canada would impose duties on C $29.8 billion (USD $21 billion) worth of goods, to go into effect at 12:01 am Thursday March 13. Other exporters of steel and aluminum to the United States have not yet announced any countermeasures.
White House unveils “America First” investment policy. On February 21, President Trump issued a Memorandum to various U.S. executive departments regarding the administration’s “America First” investment policy. The memorandum calls for “fast track” review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) of investments by allied country investors that can demonstrate “verifiable distance” from China, as well as the curbing of U.S. investments by China-linked parties. Furthermore, the memorandum refers to potential new restrictions on U.S. outbound investment into China across various sectors. See our alert.
President Trump initiates Section 232 investigations into copper and lumber imports. On February 25 and March 1, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to begin investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act into copper and lumber imports, respectively. Generally, a 232 investigation requires Commerce to evaluate the national security risks associated with the imported product under investigation. Commerce has until November 22 and November 26 to issue its reports and tariff suggestions for copper and lumber, respectively. President Trump followed these measures with an executive order to immediately expand U.S. domestic timber production.
President Trump confirms goal of instituting “reciprocal tariffs” on April 2. As previously reported, President Trump requested an assessment no later than April 1 on instituting a reciprocal tariff regime. In this regime, the United States will impose tariffs on countries that impose trade barriers on U.S. goods, e.g., tariffs and unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative solicited public comment in support of this assessment. President Trump has since stated that he intends for these tariffs to come into force on April 2.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. announces $100 billion investment into chip manufacturing operations in the United States. On March 3, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (“TSMC”) Chief Executive Officer Dr. C.C. Wei and President Trump announced an additional $100 billion investment by TSMC into U.S. chipmaking operations. This move aims to bolster U.S. national security efforts by increasing domestic chip production and reducing reliance on foreign-made semiconductors. The investment announcement came just days before President Trump called for the repeal of the CHIPS Act, a bipartisan law that provides for subsidization of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.
Ukraine accepts U.S.-led ceasefire proposal, putting ball in Russia’s court and setting up a critical minerals deal. On March 11, Ukraine agreed to an American-led ceasefire proposal following negotiations in Saudi Arabia, although the deal still awaits Russia’s response. The agreement marked a turnaround in U.S.-Ukraine relations following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s contentious February White House meeting with President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, which had set off a chain of events resulting in the United States suspending military aid to Ukraine, a move that the Trump Administration immediately reversed upon reaching the ceasefire agreement. Furthermore, the U.S.-Ukraine Joint Statement following the March 11 meeting notes that President Trump and President Zelensky agreed “to conclude as soon as possible” an agreement regarding U.S. development of Ukrainian critical mineral resources.
Conservatives secure majority vote in German federal election. In late February, Friedrich Merz’s CDU/CSU alliance claimed victory in the German federal election, securing approximately 28.5 percent of the vote and positioning Merz to become the next Chancellor. The CDU/CSU intends to form a coalition with the Social Democrats (“SPD”) instead of the Alternative for Germany (“AFD”) party, which became the second-largest party in the Bundestag. Following the victory, Merz remarked during a post-election debate, “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.”
Vice President Vance remarks at Munich Security Conference rankle European countries. On February 14, Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking at the 61st Munich Security Conference, delivered remarks that criticized European restrictions on free speech and its approach to security, arguing that the continent was stifling open discourse. The speech drew negative reactions from U.S. allies, including German Defense Minister Borris Pistorius, who said that the vice president’s comments were “not acceptable.”
U.S. Department of State designates certain Latin American cartels as terrorist organizations. On February 20, the U.S. Department of State (“State”) designated certain international cartels, including Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”), South America-based Tren de Aragua (“TdA”) and Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (“CJNG”), as both Foreign Terrorist Organizations (“FTOs”) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (“SDGTs”). The terrorist designations could present significant compliance challenges for companies that operate in areas controlled by cartels. See our alert.
U.S. trade deficit rose sharply in January ahead of Trump tariffs. The U.S. trade deficit grew by 34 percent in January to $131.4 billion, largely driven by a 10 percent increase in imports, which grew to $401.2 billion. Reports indicate that the spike in the deficit may have been driven by American companies frontloading imports in anticipation of upcoming tariffs.
George T. Boggs and Kathleen H. Shannon contributed to this article
Tariff Whiplash in North America
On March 4, 2025, and pursuant to President Donald Trump’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the U.S. proceeded with imposing IEEPA tariffs of 25 percent on products of Canada and Mexico, while also increasing IEEPA tariffs to 20 percent on products of China. Yet, in the two days that have passed since these IEEPA tariffs went into effect, we have already seen dramatic changes with respect to Canada and Mexico, exemplifying the fast-changing nature of negotiations between the U.S. and its North American trading partners.
Here are the key aspects of these tariffs as originally imposed on March 4, their limited exemptions, and the latest announcements from the White House pausing certain IEEPA tariffs.
IEEPA Duty Rates and Rules of Origin (Effective March 4, 2025)
Mexico: 25 percent on all imports
Canada: 25 percent on all imports, except on Canadian energy or energy products, which are subject to a lower 10 percent tariff.
China: 20 percent on all imports (previously 10 percent)
These tariffs apply broadly to most imported goods that are “products of” those three countries. For Canada and Mexico, the determination of whether merchandise is a “product of” those countries is based on two rules of origin: 1) United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) origin rules and 2) “substantial transformation,” which often involves a complex case-by-case analysis. For China, the non-preferential rules of origin apply, which includes the substantial transformation analysis. Thus, importers need to be wary that even imports coming from outside of Canada, Mexico, or China can be subject to these IEEPA tariffs, e.g., an unassembled Chinese-origin product that undergoes only simple assembly in a third country would remain subject to China tariffs.
Importers should also keep in mind these tariffs are additive, and can stack on top of other existing tariffs, such as Section 301 and Section 232 duties.
Limited Exemptions
Should all tariffs snap back into place in one month, importers should be aware that there are currently very few and limited exemptions from IEEPA tariffs. For instance, exemptions remain for certain “Chapter 98” importations, such as for temporary importations under bond (TIB) or goods that are exported and subsequently returned. And at the moment, the U.S. continues to allow shipments valued at or under the $800 de minimis threshold to avoid IEEPA tariffs, pending the Commerce Department’s report that “adequate systems” are in place to collect duties on these de minimis entries.
Aside from Chapter 98 and de minimis shipments, the published instructions explicitly rule out the use of drawbacks and foreign trade zones (FTZ) to obtain refunds or avoid the tariffs. There is also no process established to request product-specific exclusions.
One-Month Pause for Certain Imports from Mexico and Canada
On March 5, 2025, the White House announced a one-month delay on the 25 percent tariffs for automotive imports from Canada and Mexico. To date, the White House has not published details regarding the scope of this pause, such as whether it would apply to all automotive-related goods including parts and components. It is also unclear whether the pause would apply only to certain U.S.-based automakers or if all automakers importing into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico would receive tariff relief for one month.
On March 6, 2025, President Trump further announced in the media that he had reached an agreement with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to delay the 25 percent tariffs for one month on nearly all goods from Mexico that “fall under the USMCA Agreement.” The White House has not published details regarding the scope of this one-month pause for Mexico.
More Changes on the Way
Given the evolving nature of the administration’s trade policy, businesses affected by tariffs should closely monitor changes on the horizon. Businesses should continue to look out for official publications regarding the one-month pause on certain IEEPA tariffs to assess the actual scope of the one-month reprieve. Businesses should also prepare for potential new tariffs under President Trump’s Fair and Reciprocal Plan that may go into effect as soon as April 2, the same time the one-month pause on IEEPA tariffs ends.
Navigating the AI Frontier: Why Information Governance Matters More Than Ever
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the legal landscape, offering unprecedented opportunities for efficiency and innovation. However, this powerful technology also introduces new challenges to established information governance (IG) processes. Ignoring these challenges can lead to significant risks, including data breaches, compliance violations, and reputational damage.
“AI Considerations for Information Governance Processes,” a recent paper published by Iron Mountain, delves into these critical considerations, providing a framework for law firms and legal departments to adapt their IG strategies for the age of AI.
Key Takeaways:
AI Amplifies Existing IG Risks: AI tools, especially machine learning algorithms, often require access to and process vast amounts of sensitive data to function effectively. This makes robust data security, privacy measures, and strong information governance (IG) frameworks absolutely paramount. Any existing vulnerabilities or weaknesses in your current IG framework can be significantly amplified by the introduction and use of AI, potentially leading to data breaches, privacy violations, and regulatory non-compliance.
Data Lifecycle Management is Crucial: From the initial data ingestion and collection stage, through data processing, storage, and analysis, all the way to data archival or disposal, a comprehensive understanding and careful management of the AI’s entire data lifecycle is essential for maintaining data integrity and ensuring compliance. This includes knowing exactly how data is used for training AI models, for analysis and generating insights, and for any other purposes within the AI system.
Vendor Due Diligence is Non-Negotiable: If you’re considering using third-party AI vendors or cloud-based AI services, conducting rigorous due diligence on these vendors is non-negotiable. This due diligence should focus heavily on evaluating their data security practices, their compliance with relevant industry standards and certifications, and their contractual obligations and guarantees regarding data protection and privacy.
Transparency and Explainability are Key: “Black box” AI systems that make decisions without any transparency or explainability can pose significant risks. It’s crucial to understand how AI algorithms make decisions, especially those that impact individuals, to ensure fairness, accuracy, non-discrimination, and compliance with ethical guidelines and legal requirements. This often requires techniques like model interpretability and explainable AI.
Proactive Policy Development is Essential: Organizations need to proactively develop clear policies, procedures, and guidelines for AI usage within their specific context. These should address critical issues such as data access and authorization controls, data retention and storage policies, data disposal and deletion protocols, as well as model training, validation, and monitoring practices.
The Time to Act is Now:
AI is not a future concern; it’s a present reality. Law firms and legal departments must proactively adapt their information governance processes to mitigate the risks associated with AI and unlock its full potential.
Artists Protest AI Copyright Proposal in the U.K.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to turn the U.K. into an artificial intelligence (AI) superpower to help grow the British economy by using policies that he describes as “pro-innovation.” One of these policies proposed relaxing copyright protections. Under the proposal, initially unveiled in December 2024, AI companies could freely use copyrighted material to train their models unless the owner of the copyrighted material opted out.
Although some Parliament members called the proposal an effective compromise between copyright holders and AI companies, over a thousand musicians released a “silent album” to protest the proposed changes to U.K. copyright laws. The album, currently streaming on Spotify, includes 12 tracks of only ambient sound. According to the musicians, the silent tracks illustrate empty recording studios and represent the impact they “expect the government’s proposals would have on musicians’ livelihoods.” To further convey their unhappiness with the proposed changes, the title of these twelve songs, when combined, reads, “The British government must not legalize music theft to benefit AI companies.”
High-profile artists like Elton John, Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, and Ed Sheeran have also signed a letter urging the British government to avoid implementing these proposed changes. According to the artists, implementing the new rule would effectively give artists’ rights away to big tech companies.
The British government launched a consultation that sought comments on the potential changes to the copyright laws. The U.K. Intellectual Property Office received over 13,000 responses before the consultation closed at the end of February 2025, which the government will now review as it seeks to implement a final policy.
USTR Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced its proposed actions under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”), in connection with its Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance (the “Proposed Action”) on February 21, 2025.
In short, the Proposed Action includes a variety of recommended remedies, including (1) imposing significant port fees on Chinese vessel operators and other operators of Chinese-built vessels, and operators with orders for new vessels being built in Chinese yards, and (2) implementing requirements for mandatory use of U.S.-flag and U.S.-built vessels to carry fixed percentages (increased annually) of U.S. exports.
At this time, the Proposed Action is not final and USTR is seeking public comment by March 24, 2025, as discussed further below. Given the role that ocean transportation plays in the economy, the Proposed Action would have far-reaching effects to the extent it is adopted. Accordingly, vessel owners and operators and other interested parties in the industry should consider commenting on the Proposed Action and/or appearing at the upcoming hearing with respect to how the Proposed Action may affect them and their industry. In addition, at a minimum, shipowners, operators, charterers, and shippers should start considering their operations, contracts, and how the Proposed Action may affect them.
It is worth noting that in the days since USTR released its Proposed Action, the Trump administration has taken several significant steps focused on promotion of the U.S. shipbuilding and maritime industry, including measures drawing revenue from the proposed Section 301 fees:
Creation of a Shipbuilding Office: President Trump announced plans to establish a new office of shipbuilding within the White House. The Office of Maritime and National Capacity is organized within the National Security Council and aims to revitalize domestic ship production.
Tax Incentives: The administration plans to offer special tax incentives to encourage investment in both military and commercial shipbuilding.
Executive Order Under Consideration: An executive order (“EO”) is under consideration that includes measures to support U.S. shipbuilders. A draft order, which has been circulated in recent days throughout the maritime industry, reportedly includes a directive that USTR impose, through the ongoing 301 investigation, tonnage-based fees on Chinese-built and Chinese-flagged ships (or vessels in fleets that contain such ships) entering the United States. However, at this point, the EO is still in draft form and has not been signed or released to the public.
Background
Section 301 authorizes USTR to investigate foreign trade practices and impose measures on foreign countries found to violate U.S. trade agreements or engage in acts that are “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” in ways that burden U.S. commerce. USTR’s powers under Section 301 are quite broad.
In March 12, 2024, five major U.S. labor unions filed a Section 301 petition regarding alleged acts, policies, and practices of China to dominate the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sector. The petition was accepted, and on April 17, 2024, USTR initiated an investigation. Following its investigation, on January 16, 2025, in the last days of the Biden Administration, USTR published its report and determined that China’s practices were “actionable”.[1]
In connection therewith, USTR published the Proposed Action and is now seeking public comments from interested parties. Comments must be submitted via USTR’s online portal (https://comments.ustr.gov/s/) no later than March 24, 2025. USTR has also scheduled a public hearing on the proposed actions on March 24, 2025, in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission located at 500 E Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436. Interested parties may request to appear at the hearing no later than March 10, 2025, and the request should include a summary of the proposed testimony and may be accompanied by a pre-hearing submission. Remarks at the hearing are limited to five minutes.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action includes the following fees and service restrictions:
Fees
Chinese maritime transport operators will be charged a fee:
up to U.S. $1,000,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; or
up to U.S. $1,000 per net ton of the vessel’s capacity per entrance to a U.S. port.
Chinese maritime transport operators with fleets comprised of Chinese-built vessels will be charged:
up to U.S. $1,500,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port;
fees based on the percentage of Chinese-built vessels in the operator’s fleet:
up to U.S. $1,000,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if greater than 50 percent of the fleet;
up to U.S. $750,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if between 25 percent and 50 percent of the fleet; or
up to U.S. $500,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if between 0 percent and 25 percent of the fleet; or
an “additional” fee up to U.S. $1,000,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port if the number of Chinese-built vessels in the operators fleet is equal to or greater than 25 percent.
Maritime transport operators with prospective orders for Chinese vessels:
an “additional fee” based on the percentage of vessels ordered from Chinese shipyards:
up to U.S. $1,000,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if greater than 50 percent of their vessel orders in Chinese shipyard or vessels expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months;
up to U.S. $750,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if between 25 percent and 50 percent of their vessel orders in Chinese shipyard or vessels expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months; or
up to U.S. $500,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if between 0 percent and 25 percent of their vessel orders in Chinese shipyard or vessels expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months; or
a fee up to U.S. $1,000,000 per vessel entrance at a U.S. port if 25 percent or more of the total number of vessels ordered by an operator, or expected to be delivered to the operator, are ordered or expected to the delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months.
The Proposed Action also includes a proposed “refund” for additional fees, on a calendar year basis, up to U.S. $1,000,000 per entry into a U.S. port of a U.S.-built vessel through which the operator is providing international maritime transport services. However, the Proposed Action does not include any further details as to the timing of refunds or the process to obtain a refund.
Service Restrictions
In addition to the above fees, the Proposed Action includes restrictions on services aimed at promoting the transport of U.S. goods on U.S. vessels. In that regard, the international maritime transport of all U.S. goods (e.g., capital goods, consumer goods, agricultural products, and chemical, petroleum, or gas products), must comply with the following schedule:
“As of” Effective Date
Effective Date of Action
Two Years Following Effective Date of Action
Three Years Following Effective Date of Action
Seven Years Following Effective Date of Action
Percentage of U.S. Products, Per Calendar Year, Exported by Vessel, Restricted to Export on U.S.-Flagged Vessels by U.S. Operators
At least 1 percent
At least 3 percent
At least 5 percent (at 3 percent of which must be U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built, by U.S. Operators)
At least 15 percent (at 5 percent of which must be U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built, by U.S. Operators)
The Proposed Action also includes a requirement that U.S. goods are to be exported on U.S.-flagged, U.S. built vessels, but may be approved for export on a non-U.S.-built vessel provided the operator providing international maritime transport services demonstrates that at least 20 percent of the U.S. products, per calendar year, that the operator will transport by vessel, will be transported on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built ships.
Other Actions
In addition, the Proposed Action included a recommendation that relevant U.S. agencies take actions to reduce exposure to and risk from China’s promotion of the National Transportation and Logistics Public Information Platform (“LOGINK”) or other similar platforms, including investigating alleged anticompetitive practices from Chinese shipping companies, restricting LOGINK access to U.S. shipping data, or banning or continuing to ban terminals at U.S. ports and U.S. ports from using LOGINK software.
Key Takeaways
Open Issues: While the Proposed Action listed a number of proposed fees and restrictions, the descriptions are generally vague and include no regulatory details or necessary definitions for implementation. For effective implementation, many of the proposals will need to be fleshed out further before a final rule is adopted.
For example, many requirements are based on who the vessel “operator” is, but that term is not defined, and there is no standard definition of “vessel operator” in U.S. law; it can vary depending on the particular legal or regulatory requirements at issue. There is also no indication how affiliated companies would be treated in the fleet-wide analysis of the origin of vessels or newbuilds.
In addition, the Proposed Action sets maximum fees (“at a rate of up to $1,000,000 per entrance”) but does not include any analytical principles, policies, or procedures to determine how the U.S. government would set the actual fees for specific vessels (e.g., how will fees be adjusted based on vessel type, cargo type, trade, volume, export status, and/or other factors, etc.).
Status of the Proposed Action: The Proposed Action is only a set of proposals at this stage and the various fees and service restrictions are not yet final. At this time, it is unclear whether USTR will ultimately impose all, some, or any of the proposals included in the Proposed Action. However, given the lack of specificity and open issues, public comment and testimony at the public hearing by interest parties may help shape what form the final rules takes.
Timeline: The public hearing is scheduled for March 24, 2025, and the deadline for public comments also closes on March 24, 2025. Section 301 cases are supposed to be completed within one year, which would require the rule to be finalized by April 17, 2025, and then implemented 30 days after. However, the White House may extend that period up to 180 days.
Given the lack of specificity in the Proposed Action and the anticipated wide-ranging opposition from inside the United States (from importer, exporters, manufacturers, retailers, etc.) and also outside the United States (shipowners, shippers, associations, governments, etc.), it will be challenging for USTR to finish this process and publish a workable final regulation within the one-year timeframe. However, given the velocity of other recent administration trade actions, an implementation of some or all proposed measures in April cannot be ruled out.
Contract Review: In the interim, vessel owner and operators and other actors in the industry should review their existing and prospective contracts and consider how the Proposed Action may affect them and whether they may have any applicable relief. For example:
Which party is responsible for port fees (typically the charterers) and are there any exceptions or restrictions that may be applicable;
Does the contract include tariff or sanction provisions that may be applicable; or
Would the Proposed Action constitute a force majeure event, a change in law, or a material adverse change such that certain rights such as suspension of performance, substitution of vessel, or termination may be applicable?
[1] The full 182-page report titled Section 301 Investigation: Report on China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance, may be found here: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/USTRReportChinaTargetingMaritime.pdf