This article is general information, not legal advice. Whether these tariffs apply to your entries, and how to respond, depends on your specific facts. Consult a qualified attorney about your situation.
In short: The moment the Section 122 tariff expired, the administration replaced it with new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act, justified by a forced labor finding against roughly 60 trading partners. These tariffs have no built-in expiration date, unlike Section 122's 150-day limit, and they are already being challenged at the Court of International Trade, including by the same importer that won the earlier Section 122 case.
Key takeaways
- Section 301 "forced labor" tariffs of 10 or 12.5 percent took effect July 24, 2026, on goods from roughly 60 countries, the same day Section 122 expired.
- Unlike Section 122, this action has no statutory sunset and unlike IEEPA, it followed an actual USTR investigation, which several law firms say gives it firmer procedural footing.
- There is no product-specific exclusion process for these tariffs, unlike the 2018 to 2019 China Section 301 tariffs.
- At least two lawsuits are underway at the Court of International Trade, with a hearing scheduled for September 30, 2026. One is brought by Burlap and Barrel, the same importer that won the earlier Section 122 case, together with Collective Horology.
- Litigation at the Court of International Trade is the confirmed route to challenge these tariffs today. Whether a CBP protest also applies to these specific entries has not been confirmed.
Section 122's tariff expired on July 24, 2026, and a new tariff regime took its place the same day. This one rests on a different legal authority, covers a similar share of trade, and is already in court. Here is how it works and what is being challenged.
What the new tariffs actually are
These are Section 301 tariffs, imposed under 19 U.S.C. Section 2411, the Trade Act of 1974 provision that lets the United States Trade Representative act against a foreign country's trade practices found to be unreasonable. USTR opened investigations into roughly 60 economies in March 2026, found in June that each economy's failure to prohibit or enforce a ban on forced-labor-made imports was an unreasonable trade practice, and finalized the tariffs effective July 24, 2026.
The rate depends on each country's own forced-labor import policy. Countries with an import prohibition already in place, a partial regime, or a qualifying trade agreement pay 10 percent. Countries without any such prohibition pay 12.5 percent. Coverage runs through more than 100 new Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 99 provisions, and USTR published country-specific documents identifying exactly which codes apply.
A meaningful list of goods is exempted, including items already covered by Section 232 tariffs such as steel, aluminum, and semiconductors, civil aircraft, pharmaceuticals, humanitarian goods, USMCA-qualifying goods from Canada and Mexico, and CAFTA-DR textiles. Four countries, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, received a separate three-year tariff-rate quota on textiles and apparel, with implementation deferred to September 1, 2026.
How this is different from Section 122 and IEEPA
Two things separate this action from what came before it. First, it has no built-in expiration. Section 122 carried a hard 150-day statutory limit. This action does not, and current guidance is to plan on these tariffs remaining in place indefinitely absent a court order or a policy change.
Second, this action went through an actual process. Neither IEEPA nor Section 122 required any agency investigation before the tariffs took effect, which is part of why both were vulnerable to legal challenge. Section 301 required a multi-month USTR investigation, a public comment period, and formal findings before these tariffs were finalized. Morgan Lewis and Baker McKenzie have both noted this gives the action firmer procedural footing than IEEPA or Section 122 had.
That does not mean it is immune from challenge. The scale is the issue the Peterson Institute for International Economics and others point to: Section 301 has historically targeted the trade practices of one country at a time. Using it to impose a near-uniform tariff on 60 countries at once, covering the large majority of goods entering the United States, raises the same kind of major-questions and nondelegation arguments that brought down IEEPA and Section 122, just applied to a statute that was not designed to be used this way.
Who is challenging it, and on what grounds
At least two cases are underway at the Court of International Trade as of this writing, with a three-judge panel assigned and a hearing scheduled for September 30, 2026.
The first, filed by Burlap and Barrel together with Collective Horology, argues that Section 301 requires country-specific findings and targeted remedies, and that USTR instead converted 60 separate investigations into what amounts to a single global tariff program without the country-by-country reasoning the statute requires. Burlap and Barrel is the same importer that won the earlier Section 122 ruling.
A second case, brought by 25 states, argues the same core point in more detail: that the tariffs were not tied to the actual prevalence of forced labor in each country, that public comments were not meaningfully addressed, and that no country has a way to work its way off the list through remedial action. The states are asking the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, stop their collection, and order refunds of what has already been paid.
No ruling has been issued. CBP continues to collect the tariffs while the litigation proceeds.
What an importer can do right now
There is no product-specific exclusion request process for these tariffs, unlike the exclusion process that existed for the 2018 to 2019 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods. The exemption list was fixed when the tariffs were finalized, so there is no case-by-case path to petition your way out if your product is covered.
Litigation at the Court of International Trade is the confirmed way to challenge the underlying tariff action, and that litigation is already moving. Whether a CBP protest additionally applies to preserve an individual entry's refund claim has not been confirmed for this specific action, since no entries have liquidated yet and CBP has not published entry-level guidance. Given how the Section 122 experience played out, where relief went only to the importers who had filed their own case, the safer assumption is that a court filing, not a protest, is what will end up mattering.
What to do this week
- Map your supply chain against the country list and the new Chapter 99 codes to confirm which of your entries are affected and at what rate.
- Do not wait on the exclusion process. There is not one for this action.
- Speak with an attorney about whether a Court of International Trade filing makes sense for your exposure, rather than waiting to see how the pending cases resolve.
- If you also paid the earlier Section 122 tariff, review that exposure separately. It follows its own timeline and its own pending appeal.
To have your exposure under the new Section 301 tariffs reviewed, start here and speak with an attorney.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Section 301 "forced labor" tariff?
A tariff of 10 or 12.5 percent on goods from roughly 60 countries, imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 after USTR found each country's failure to prohibit forced-labor-made imports to be an unreasonable trade practice. It took effect July 24, 2026.
Is this the same as the Section 122 tariff?
No. Section 122 was a different statute, expired on its own 150-day limit, and required no agency investigation. Section 301 has no built-in expiration and followed a formal USTR investigation.
Can I apply for a product exclusion?
No. Unlike earlier Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, this action has no case-by-case exclusion request process. The exemption list was fixed when the tariffs were finalized.
Is there a lawsuit challenging these tariffs?
Yes, at least two are proceeding at the Court of International Trade, with a hearing scheduled for September 30, 2026. No ruling has been issued and the tariffs remain in effect.
Is this the same as the forced labor import ban I already know about?
No. The forced labor import ban most importers are familiar with is a separate statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1307, enforced through CBP detentions and Withhold Release Orders on specific shipments. This is a tariff, imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, applied at the country level rather than to specific detained goods.
Related reading
Section 122 Tariff Refund Status: What Importers Need to Know Right Now · Section 122 Tariff Refund: The Next Wave After IEEPA?
Tariff Refund Solutions is an attorney-led program that recovers IEEPA tariff refunds for businesses on contingency.
Sources: Office of the United States Trade Representative, Section 301 forced labor action fact sheet; Holland & Knight; Baker McKenzie; Morgan Lewis; Liberty Justice Center; Supply Chain Dive; Trade Law Daily.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Whether and how to respond depends on the facts of your specific entries. Consult a qualified attorney about your situation.