Those effects depend on Congress enacting the sponsor-posted Senate BAD DEAL Act text, HLA26888, section 2 unchanged. As of September 16, the proposal supplies no authority to disregard the scheduled bans, omit an applicable duty or resume a shipment that would be prohibited. Independent customs requirements would still need to be satisfied after Section 338 relief.
The September bans expand what repeal would remove
Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Peter Welch formally introduced the measure on September 15, according to Gillibrand's Senate announcement of the BAD DEAL Act's introduction. The September 15 Congressional Record identifies it as S. 5397, referred to the Senate Finance Committee at page S4734. The House companion is now available as H.R. 10175, introduced on August 27. Both texts repeal Section 338 and nullify presidential proclamations issued under it.
The mechanism was already in the August proposal. What changed afterward was the restriction it would reach. The White House's September 8 Canada actions, also tracked in the Canada counter-retaliation Policy Signal, added import prohibitions to the dispute.
The bans preserve a tariff if exclusion fails
Proclamation 11061, the Canadian alcohol import ban published at 91 FR 58311, excludes annex-listed goods imported at or after one minute past midnight Eastern time on September 29. Its operative paragraph 9(b) directs the original Proclamation 11046 duty to apply if the ban is invalidated as to an import.
The same structure appears in Proclamation 11062, the dairy-related import ban at 91 FR 58319, and Proclamation 11063, the motor-vehicle-related import ban at 91 FR 58325. Their fallback duties come from Proclamations 11047 and 11048, respectively.
The original tariff must remain legally operative for that fallback to apply. A particular court order could also reach the underlying tariff. An interim injunction would need to be read on its own terms, because paragraph 9(b) addresses invalidation.
The product boundary matters just as much. The Proclamation 11063 annex lists only HTS 8711.50.00, motorcycles and cycles with reciprocating internal-combustion piston engines exceeding 800 cubic centimeters. The Proclamation 11062 annex includes non-alcoholic beer, whey and molasses lines. Broad sector labels cannot identify the affected purchase lines.
Nullification would reach both bans and tariffs
Section 2(a) of the sponsor-posted Senate text covers a proclamation issued "in whole or in part" under Section 338. The authority clauses in Proclamation 11061, Proclamation 11062 and Proclamation 11063 expressly invoke Section 338. Each also cites other powers, including authority to implement changes in the tariff schedule. The whole-or-part wording prevents those additional citations from taking a Section 338 proclamation outside the clause's stated coverage.
The same records identify the original tariffs as Section 338 measures, placing those proclamations within the same clause. On that reading, enactment would deprive the ban instruments, their fallback provisions and the original Section 338 duty instruments of legal effect. A reference inside a nullified proclamation would not preserve a tariff imposed by another nullified proclamation.
| Change affecting the shipment | Section 338 import restriction | Section 338 duty consequence |
|---|
| Ban invalidated for that import, with the underlying tariff left operative | Relief follows the scope of the order | Paragraph 9(b) prescribes the original 50% duty, subject to the order |
| BAD DEAL section 2(a) enacted unchanged | Section 338 ban proclamations lose effect | Original Section 338 tariff proclamations and the ban's fallback provisions also lose effect |
Neither row establishes that every other duty is zero or that the merchandise meets all remaining entry requirements.
Refund timing cannot decide when supply resumes
The Senate bill, section 2, separates proclamation nullification from the presidential refund command. A company's decision to resume purchases would turn on the removal of the import restriction and the treatment of its next shipment.
Traverse's August BAD DEAL analysis examined the gap between ending a duty and administering repayment. The September bans add an access decision to that sequence. The bill's refund provision covers tariffs or other duties imposed and collected under the specified authority. It supplies no separate compensation rule for a canceled order, idle distribution capacity or revenue forgone while goods cannot be imported.
A company could therefore resume commercially viable purchases before its earlier refund is paid. Its cost estimate for the new shipment should reflect the duties expected on that shipment.
Check the final terms against the planned shipment
For a covered Canadian order, the decision record should identify the exact annex classification and any packaging condition, the planned importation event, and the instrument presently restricting it. Traverse's September analysis of importation and earlier inventory explains why previously imported stock and a later delivery can receive different treatment.
If Congress acts, replace the legislative scenario with the enacted text and its effective date. Check whether the final nullification clause still reaches the ban and original tariff proclamations. Then obtain the applicable CBP instructions and the broker's assessment of the shipment. Agency instructions matter for execution. They should not be confused with the legal event that removes an authority.
A narrower amendment, an order addressing only certain imports, or a new restriction under an independent authority would require reassessing the shipment's admissibility and remaining duties.