Loading
ReadUpdated Aug 18, 2026
Analysis
Trade-policy analysis for import-scope decisions, written from the public record. Start from a product line, origin, supplier, or case, then read what the record changes for that file.
Published pieces210 in the archive
Current leadPolicy monitoring
SourcingCitable public records
Written forImport and customs teams
Browse
Topics
Trade policy40 piecesPolicy monitoringTrade remedies10 piecesAD/CVD ordersInjury determination+1Customs enforcement20 piecesClassification and valuationUFLPA enforcement+2Tariff authority58 piecesSection 301 trackSection 122 surcharge+2Entry posture review29 piecesRefund postureCAPE processing+3Export controls12 piecesLicensing regimeFDPR enforcement+2Trade governance8 piecesAdvisory committeeEXIM reauthorization+1Origin review24 piecesUSMCA reviewAuto rules of origin+1Metals scope review6 piecesSection 232 metalsSection 232 copper+1Tariff relief2 piecesExclusion process
Filtered
Refund posture stream
A USMCA Win for Canada Would Not Refund Section 338 Duties
A Canadian victory under USMCA dispute settlement would not itself preserve or refund Section 338 duties paid by a United States importer on covered entries.
The States' Tariff Suit Separates Economic Injury From Customs Refunds
The 25-state Section 301 complaint separates direct imports from vendor pass-through costs. That distinction may shape standing and entry-level relief. A state victory would not automatically preserve a private importer's refund claim.
