Section 122 Tariffs: Expiration Date, 2026 Status & What Comes Next

What are Section 122 tariffs?

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% on imports for up to 150 days, extendable only by Act of Congress, to address "fundamental international payments problems." President Trump invoked this authority on February 20, 2026, hours after the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs, and a 10% global surcharge took effect February 24, 2026 (91 FR 9339). The surcharge expired on July 24, 2026.

When did Section 122 tariffs expire?

Section 122 tariffs expired at 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, 2026, 150 days from their February 24 effective date, and Congress did not extend them: the current Harmonized Tariff Schedule records the Section 122 headings, 9903.03.01 through 9903.03.11, as expired at the close of July 23, 2026 (HTS Revision 19, chapter 99, U.S. note 2(aa)). A replacement took effect the same minute: Section 301 duties of 10 or 12.5 percent on products of 60 economies (91 FR 47318). Entries before July 24 owe the Section 122 duty; entries on or after July 24 owe the Section 301 layer instead.

Section 122 tariffs were the administration's immediate response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held the IEEPA tariffs unlawful on February 20, 2026, the same day the President signed Proclamation 11012 (CIT Slip Op. 26-47, p. 20 n.10). The surcharge was signed and took effect within days and applied to imports from nearly all countries for 150 days. In its April 2, 2026 estimate, the Budget Lab at Yale put the U.S. effective tariff rate with Section 122 in force at approximately 11.0%, the highest since 1943 (excluding the IEEPA period in 2025). For importers reconciling entries from that window, the core challenge was not the Section 122 rate alone, but how it stacked with Section 232, Section 301, and other Chapter 99 duties already on the books. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator models the full U.S. tariff stack with date-sensitive logic, so an entry from the February 24 to July 23 window computes with the surcharge and an entry from July 24 onward computes against the layers in force on its entry date, with every duty component broken out.

Last updated: September 18, 2026

What happened on July 24, 2026?

The clock ran out on schedule. Section 122 expired at 12:01 a.m. EDT under the proclamation's own sunset clause, and Section 301 duties took effect at the same moment: 10 or 12.5 percent on products of 60 economies, with the European Union counted as one, applied to goods entered for consumption on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026 (91 FR 47318). Goods loaded and in transit before July 24 and entered before July 28 were exempt from the new duty. USTR announced the action on July 23, 2026, and CBP issued filing guidance the same day (CSMS 69326983). USTR had initiated the 60 investigations on March 12, 2026, and determined on June 2, 2026 that each economy's practices were actionable (91 FR 47318). Unlike Section 122, the Section 301 layer has no 150-day clock. It is also in court: the Liberty Justice Center said in a press release the week the duties took effect that it had filed a challenge to them. For importers the practical shift is permanence. A temporary surcharge with a built-in end date was replaced by an open-ended layer that only litigation or negotiation removes.

Two practical points for importers reconciling the transition. Timing: the entry date, not the order date or ship date, determined whether Section 122 applied, so shipments that cleared customs on either side of July 24 can owe materially different duty on identical goods. Refund rights: on May 7, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade held in Oregon v. United States that Proclamation 11012 was invalid and the Section 122 tariffs "unauthorized by law," but it enjoined collection only from the three importer plaintiffs and declined a universal injunction (Slip Op. 26-47). The government appealed to the Federal Circuit, and on May 20, 2026 the CIT denied a stay pending that appeal (Slip Op. 26-53). The same opinion records that the Federal Circuit granted an administrative stay on May 12, 2026, so the judgment and the injunction for the three plaintiffs are stayed until further notice. We have not verified the state of the appeal after that date. For every other importer, collection continued to the July 24 sunset, so a refund depends on the appeal and on each entry's liquidation status. Our guides on preserving Section 122 refund rights, monitoring liquidation on 122 entries, and the May CIT ruling itself cover the mechanics. GingerControl identifies and documents the opportunity; your licensed broker or counsel files.

How Did Section 122 Tariffs Differ from IEEPA Tariffs?

Section 122 and IEEPA rest on different legal authorities. The differences mattered operationally because the constraints shaped what importers had to plan for.

Feature	IEEPA Tariffs (Struck Down)	Section 122 Tariffs (Expired July 24, 2026)
Legal basis	International Emergency Economic Powers Act	Trade Act of 1974, Section 122
Maximum rate	No statutory cap (reached 145% on China)	15% statutory cap; 10% imposed
Duration	No limit	150 days, extendable only by Act of Congress; not extended
Trigger	National emergency declaration	Balance-of-payments deficit
Court status	Held unlawful by the Supreme Court (Feb. 20, 2026)	Held invalid by the Court of International Trade (May 7, 2026); injunction limited to the plaintiffs and administratively stayed by the Federal Circuit since May 12, 2026; appeal pending as of May 20, 2026
Country targeting	Country-specific rates	Uniform global rate

Bottom line: The shift from IEEPA to Section 122 changed every importer's duty calculation for 150 days. A Chinese-origin product that faced 145% at the IEEPA peak faced its Section 301 rate plus a 10% surcharge from February 24 to July 23, 2026. The constraint was duration: without an Act of Congress, Section 122 had to end by July 24, 2026, and it did.

For compliance teams managing products that were subject to IEEPA tariffs, GingerControl's Tariff Calculator handles date-sensitive calculations, so you can model what your products owed under IEEPA, what they owed under Section 122 in the February 24 to July 23 window, and what they owe today under the layers that replaced it.

What Was the Section 122 Tariff Rate?

The proclamation set the Section 122 rate at 10% (91 FR 9339, paragraph (1); White House fact sheet), and 10% is the rate that stayed in force for the entire 150 days.

On February 22, President Trump announced he would raise it to 15%, the statutory maximum, but no executive action ever implemented that increase. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, reporting the announcement, is explicit: "President Trump announced that the Section 122 tariffs will increase to 15%, but that change has not yet officially been made" (CRFB). If you are reconciling entries from this period, the duty actually assessed was 10%.

On that operative 10% rate, CRFB estimated roughly $35 billion in net new revenue over the 150-day window; the widely quoted $50 billion figure assumed the 15% rate that never took effect.

What Products Were Exempt from Section 122 Tariffs?

The proclamation carved out thirteen product groups in its paragraph 14, detailed in Annexes I and II: certain critical minerals; metals used in currency and bullion; energy and energy products; natural resources and fertilizers not produced in the United States in sufficient quantity; certain agricultural products, including beef, tomatoes, and oranges; pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; certain electronics; passenger vehicles, certain light trucks, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, buses, and certain parts; certain aerospace products; information materials, donations, and accompanied baggage; all articles subject to Section 232; USMCA-qualifying goods of Canada or Mexico entered free of duty; and CAFTA-DR textile and apparel goods entered free of duty (91 FR 9339). Getting these rules wrong on an entry from the window means either overpaid duty to recover or underpaid duty to correct.

Stacking with Section 232: Paragraph (4) of the proclamation is explicit: "The surcharge imposed in this proclamation shall not apply in addition to tariffs imposed under section 232." Where a Section 232 tariff applied to only part of an import, the surcharge applied to the remainder. The Reed Smith Tariff Tracker (updated April 8, 2026) worked through the product-level interactions:

Automobile, auto parts, bus, MHDV, and MHDV parts tariffs under Section 232 did not stack with Section 122
Aluminum and steel Section 232 tariffs could stack on top of each other if a product was subject to both, but neither stacked with Section 122
Copper, lumber, and semiconductor Section 232 tariffs did not stack with Section 122
For derivative products where applicable steel, aluminum, or copper inputs accounted for less than 15% of total weight, White & Case reported that a de minimis exception applied to the Section 232 tariff, meaning Section 122 applied instead

Stacking with everything else: Paragraph (3) of the proclamation states that the surcharge "is in addition to any other duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such products." General duties, antidumping and countervailing duties, and Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods therefore applied alongside Section 122 where the product was not otherwise exempt.

These stacking rules are why a one-line "10% global tariff" headline understated the complexity. For an aluminum product from China, an importer faced base MFN duty plus the Section 232 aluminum tariff plus Section 301, but no Section 122. For a consumer product from Vietnam outside the exemption lists, base MFN plus Section 122, but no Section 232 or 301. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator resolves this with date-sensitive logic: enter your HTS code and origin country, and the calculator shows which tariff programs applied on the entry date, which were exempt, and the total landed cost, with every component broken out.

Were Section 122 Tariffs Challenged in Court?

Yes, and the challenge succeeded on the merits for the importers who brought it. Twenty-four states filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade on March 5, 2026 (Court No. 26-01472), and two importers, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc., filed on March 9, 2026 (Court No. 26-01606) (Slip Op. 26-47). The complaints argued that:

The proclamation impermissibly defined the statutory term "balance-of-payments deficits" to mean current account deficits, so the statutory trigger was not met
The tariffs were not applied consistently with the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment that Section 122 requires, given the scope of the carve-outs

Legal analysts at SCOTUSblog contended in March that Section 122 "cannot be invoked merely to address trade deficits on their own".

On May 7, 2026, a three-judge panel (Judges Barnett and Kelly, with Judge Stanceu dissenting) granted summary judgment for the State of Washington and the two importers. The majority held that "the Proclamation's use of trade and current account deficits to stand in the place of balance-of-payment deficits within the meaning of the statute renders the Proclamation ultra vires," and that "Proclamation No. 11012 is invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law." Relief was narrow: a permanent injunction for those three plaintiffs, with the Section 122 duties they had already paid to be refunded with interest; the court declined a universal injunction and dismissed the other 23 states for lack of standing (Slip Op. 26-47). On May 20, 2026 the panel denied the government's motion for a stay pending its appeal to the Federal Circuit (Slip Op. 26-53).

For every other importer, the ruling did not stop collection, and the surcharge ran to its July 24 sunset. Whether those importers recover Section 122 duties depends on the appeal and on each entry's liquidation status. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator identifies Section 122 as a separate line item for entries in the window, so you can audit which entries included the surcharge and quantify the amount at stake. GingerControl identifies and documents the opportunity; your licensed broker or counsel files.

What Was the Economic Impact of Section 122 Tariffs?

The Budget Lab at Yale (April 2, 2026) modeled the effects of the tariff regime as it stood in April, including Section 122 and all surviving tariffs from the pre-IEEPA period. Its two scenarios are shown below. Neither is what happened: the surcharge expired on schedule and was replaced the same minute by Section 301 duties of 10 or 12.5 percent on 60 economies, a replacement Yale's April note did not model.

Metric	Yale scenario: Section 122 made permanent	Yale scenario: expiry with no replacement
U.S. effective tariff rate	11.0%	8.2%
Historical comparison	Highest since 1943	Highest since 1946
Price level impact	0.8%-1.0% increase	0.5%-0.6% increase
Household cost	$1,130-$1,340/year	$650-$780/year
Revenue (150 days, estimated)	~$50 billion (CRFB, at a 15% rate)	~$35 billion (CRFB, at the operative 10%)

Note on reading this table: the 11.0% column describes the regime while Section 122 was in force; the 8.2% column describes a counterfactual in which nothing replaced it. The Section 301 layer that did replace it is in neither column.

GDP effects: Yale's March 9, 2026 note estimated the level of real GDP persistently 0.07% to 0.13% smaller in the long run, depending on whether Section 122 expired or was extended through other authorities.

Sector reallocation: In the same modelling, U.S. manufacturing output expanded by approximately 0.7%, offset by contractions in construction (1.7% decline) and mining (0.8% decline).

For importers, the operational question was never GDP impact. It was "how much more did I pay per shipment, and can I source from a lower-duty country?" GingerControl's Tariff Calculator answers this with batch country comparisons: enter your product and see the full duty breakdown for every origin country side by side, under the layers in force on the entry date.

What Happened After Section 122 Expired?

Through spring 2026 the administration described Section 122 as a bridge, not the destination, and three scenarios were in play. One of them happened.

Scenario 1, which occurred: Section 301 tariffs replaced Section 122. On March 12, 2026, USTR initiated 60 Section 301 investigations into the failure of each economy to prohibit imports made with forced labor (91 FR 12884, published March 17, 2026). It determined on June 2, 2026 that the practices were actionable, announced the tariffs on July 23, and applied them from 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026: 10 percent for economies that had enacted or committed to a forced-labor import prohibition, 12.5 percent for all others (91 FR 47318). USTR also opened a separate set of Section 301 investigations into excess manufacturing capacity in 16 economies the same week, as Davis Wright Tremaine reported in March; this post does not track that set. Unlike Section 122, Section 301 carries no rate cap and no 150-day clock.

Scenario 2, which did not occur: Congressional extension. Section 122 could be extended only by Act of Congress. None passed, and the HTS records headings 9903.03.01 through 9903.03.11 as expired at the close of July 23, 2026 (HTS Revision 19, chapter 99, U.S. note 2(aa)).

Scenario 3, which did not occur: expiration without replacement. Yale's estimate that the effective tariff rate would fall from approximately 11.0% to roughly 8.2% described this case. Because the Section 301 layer took effect the same minute the surcharge ended, that drop did not happen.

Each layer produces a different duty obligation for every HTS code and origin country combination. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator uses date-sensitive logic, so entries on either side of July 24 compute against the layers in force on their entry date.

For staying current on the Section 301 layer and whatever follows it, GingerControl's Tariff Briefing delivers daily curated digests of tariff policy changes and HTS database updates.

By the Numbers: Section 122 Tariff Impact

Statistic	Value	Source
Section 122 rate imposed	10% (statutory cap 15%)	91 FR 9339, Feb. 25, 2026
Effective period	12:01 a.m. EST Feb. 24, 2026 through 12:01 a.m. EDT July 24, 2026 (150 days)	91 FR 9339; HTS Rev. 19, ch. 99 note 2(aa)
Replacement layer	Section 301 duties of 10% or 12.5% on products of 60 economies, effective July 24, 2026	91 FR 47318, July 28, 2026
U.S. effective tariff rate with Section 122 in force	11.0% (highest since 1943), Yale estimate	Yale Budget Lab, April 2, 2026
Yale estimate for expiry with no replacement (did not occur)	8.2%	Yale Budget Lab, April 2, 2026
China effective tariff rate, economy-wide average, January 2026	~33.9%	Penn Wharton, March 16, 2026
Household cost impact, Yale expiry scenario	$650-$780/year	Yale Budget Lab, April 2, 2026
Estimated 150-day revenue at the operative 10%	~$35 billion	CRFB, March 4, 2026
States that sued in the CIT	24 filed March 5, 2026; 23 dismissed for lack of standing May 7, 2026	CIT Slip Op. 26-47
Forced-labor Section 301 investigations	60, initiated March 12, 2026	91 FR 47318
Long-run GDP impact, Yale estimate	-0.07% to -0.13%	Yale Budget Lab, March 9, 2026

FAQ

What is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974?

Section 122 authorizes the President to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% on all imports for up to 150 days, extendable only by Act of Congress, to address balance-of-payments deficits. President Trump invoked it on February 20, 2026, after the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs; the 10% global surcharge took effect February 24, 2026 and expired July 24, 2026 (91 FR 9339). GingerControl's Tariff Calculator applies the surcharge to entries in that window and the layers in force after July 24 to later entries, showing each duty component.

How did Section 122 tariffs stack with Section 232 and Section 301 duties?

Products subject to Section 232 tariffs (steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper, lumber, semiconductors) were exempt from the surcharge: paragraph (4) of the proclamation says it "shall not apply in addition to tariffs imposed under section 232." Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods applied in addition to Section 122 under paragraph (3). For entries from the February 24 to July 23, 2026 window, GingerControl's Tariff Calculator resolves these stacking rules and shows which layers applied to each HTS code and origin country.

When did Section 122 tariffs expire in 2026?

Section 122 tariffs expired at 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, 2026, 150 days from their February 24 effective date. Congress did not extend them; the HTS records headings 9903.03.01 through 9903.03.11 as expired at the close of July 23, 2026. They were replaced the same minute by Section 301 duties of 10 or 12.5 percent on products of 60 economies, announced by USTR on July 23, 2026 and published at 91 FR 47318. GingerControl's Tariff Briefing tracks the Section 301 layer daily.

How can importers calculate their total Section 122 duty exposure?

For entries from February 24 to July 23, 2026, the question is which products were subject to the surcharge after the Section 232 exclusion, the USMCA and Annex II exemptions, and stacking with Section 301. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator handles this with date-sensitive logic: enter your HTS codes and origin countries, and it resolves the stacking rules in force on the entry date, shows every applicable duty layer, and compares landed costs across 200+ countries.

Were Section 122 tariffs challenged in court?

Yes. Twenty-four states sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade on March 5, 2026, and two importers followed on March 9. On May 7, 2026 the court held Proclamation 11012 invalid and the tariffs "unauthorized by law," but enjoined collection only from the State of Washington and the two importer plaintiffs, declined a universal injunction, and dismissed the other 23 states for lack of standing (Slip Op. 26-47). On May 20 it denied a stay pending the government's Federal Circuit appeal (Slip Op. 26-53), which also records that the Federal Circuit had administratively stayed the judgment and injunction on May 12, 2026; we have not verified the appeal's status after that date. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator identifies Section 122 as a separate line item, so you can audit which entries included it. GingerControl identifies and documents the opportunity; your licensed broker or counsel files.

What happened to tariff rates when Section 122 expired?

Section 122 did not expire without replacement. Section 301 duties of 10 or 12.5 percent on products of 60 economies took effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026, the minute the surcharge ended (91 FR 47318). Yale's estimate that the effective tariff rate would fall from approximately 11.0% to 8.2% described a counterfactual in which nothing replaced the surcharge, and that drop did not occur. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator computes each entry against the layers in force on its entry date.

Did Section 122 apply to imports from all countries equally?

Section 122 applied a uniform 10% rate, but the effective rate varied by country because of stacking with other programs. China's stack was the heaviest: base MFN duty plus its List 1 to 4A Section 301 rate of 7.5% to 25% plus the 10% surcharge, so a typical List 3 item carried 35% before base MFN duty. A country with no other tariff exposure faced only the 10%. Penn Wharton's often-quoted 33.9% figure for China is an economy-wide average effective rate measured in January 2026, before Section 122 existed and while IEEPA duties were still being collected, so it is a portfolio average and not a rate to apply to any single product. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator shows the duty breakdown per country, side by side across 200+ markets.

Can GingerControl model Section 122 entries and the layers that replaced them?

Yes. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator covers the full U.S. tariff stack, including base duty, Section 232, Section 301, Chapter 99, and the expired Section 122 surcharge for entries in its window, with date-sensitive calculations. For trade operations teams managing 50+ SKUs across multiple origin countries, the batch calculation feature processes all products in a single operation, and the transparent breakdowns show which duty components applied on each entry date.

With Section 232, Section 301, and, for entries before July 24, 2026, Section 122 duties layering differently for every product and origin country, understanding your total landed cost requires a tool that models every component by entry date. GingerControl's Tariff Calculator covers the full U.S. tariff stack: base duty, Section 232, Section 301, Chapter 99, and the Section 122 surcharge for entries in its window, across 200+ countries, with transparent breakdowns and date-sensitive calculations. Try the Tariff Calculator →

GingerControl is not just a tool. We work with importers and trade compliance teams on process consulting, digital transformation strategy, and end-to-end custom system development. Talk to our team →

References

[REF 1] The Budget Lab at Yale, "State of U.S. Tariffs: April 2, 2026" Data cited: 11.0% effective tariff rate, 8.2% post-expiration rate, household cost impact, historical comparisons Source: Yale Budget Lab Published: April 2, 2026

[REF 2] The Budget Lab at Yale, "State of U.S. Tariffs: March 9, 2026" Data cited: GDP impacts (-0.07% to -0.13%), sector reallocation, revenue projections Source: Yale Budget Lab Published: March 9, 2026

[REF 3] Penn Wharton Budget Model, "Effective Tariff Rates and Revenues (Updated March 16, 2026)" Data cited: China 33.9% effective tariff rate, import coverage Source: Penn Wharton Published: March 16, 2026

[REF 4] SCOTUSblog, "The remaining questions after the Supreme Court's tariffs ruling" Data cited: State AG challenge arguments, Section 122 limitations Source: SCOTUSblog Published: March 17, 2026

[REF 5] Reed Smith Trade Compliance Resource Hub, "Trump 2.0 Tariff Tracker" Data cited: Section 122 stacking rules, exemptions, Section 232 interactions Source: Reed Smith Tariff Tracker Published: April 8, 2026

[REF 6] Mayer Brown, "New Section 301 Investigations" Data cited: Expected Section 301 outcomes, transition strategy Source: Mayer Brown Published: March 2026

[REF 7] Cherry Bekaert, "Section 122 Tariffs Challenged in Court of International Trade" Data cited: 24 states filing, CIT challenge details Source: Cherry Bekaert Published: March 2026

[REF 8] Covington & Burling, "IEEPA Tariffs Terminated, Replacement Section 122 Tariffs Take Effect" Data cited: Timeline of IEEPA-to-Section 122 transition Source: Covington Published: February 2026

[REF 9] White House, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes a Temporary Import Duty" Data cited: Section 122 proclamation details, initial 10% rate Source: White House Published: February 20, 2026

[REF 10] Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, "How Much Will Trump's New 10% (or 15%) Tariffs Raise?" Data cited: $35B-$50B revenue estimates, rate increase announcement Source: CRFB Published: March 4, 2026

[REF 11] Davis Wright Tremaine, "USTR Launches Broad Section 301 Investigations" Data cited: Section 301 investigation scope, 16 economies, forced labor enforcement Source: DWT Published: March 2026

[REF 12] Holland & Knight, "USTR Launches Section 301 Investigations of 16 Economies" Data cited: Accelerated timeline, public comment deadlines Source: Holland & Knight Published: March 2026

[REF 13] Global Trade Alert, "Section 122 in effect: what the US tariff regime looks like now" Data cited: early tariff regime overview; the announced increase to 15% was never implemented, the operative rate stayed 10% Source: Global Trade Alert Published: February 2026

[REF 14] White & Case, "United States modifies steel, aluminum, and copper Section 232 tariffs" Data cited: De minimis exception for derivative products (15% weight threshold) Source: White & Case Published: April 2026

[REF 15] Federal Register, Proclamation "Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge To Address Fundamental International Payments Problems," 91 FR 9339, FR Doc. 2026-03824 Data cited: 10% rate, 150-day period, effective February 24, 2026 through 12:01 a.m. EDT July 24, 2026, paragraph (3) and (4) stacking rules, paragraph 14 exemptions Source: Federal Register Published: February 25, 2026

[REF 16] Federal Register, "Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations ... Forced Labor," 91 FR 47318, FR Doc. 2026-15181 Data cited: 60 investigations initiated March 12, 2026; determination June 2, 2026; duties of 10 or 12.5 percent effective July 24, 2026; in-transit exception to July 28, 2026 Source: Federal Register Published: July 28, 2026

[REF 17] U.S. Court of International Trade, Oregon v. United States and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-47 Data cited: complaints filed March 5 and March 9, 2026; Proclamation 11012 held invalid; injunction limited to three plaintiffs; 23 states dismissed for lack of standing Source: CIT Slip Op. 26-47 Published: May 7, 2026 (errata June 5, 2026)

[REF 18] U.S. Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 26-53 Data cited: denial of the government's motion for a stay pending appeal to the Federal Circuit; refund of duties paid by the importer plaintiffs Source: CIT Slip Op. 26-53 Published: May 20, 2026

[REF 19] CBP, CSMS # 69326983, "GUIDANCE: Section 301 Forced Labor Import Duties" Data cited: action announced by USTR July 23, 2026; entry filing guidance effective July 24, 2026; Chapter 99 headings 9903.05.20 to 9903.05.84 Source: CBP Cargo Systems Messaging Service Published: July 23, 2026

[REF 20] U.S. International Trade Commission, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, Revision 19 (2026), chapter 99 Data cited: compiler's note to U.S. note 2(aa) recording that headings 9903.03.01 through 9903.03.11 expired at the close of July 23, 2026 Source: hts.usitc.gov Retrieved: September 18, 2026