FTZ’ine February 2026

February 2, 2026

FTZ’ine March 2026

BOOM

Just as international traders were starting cocktails to kick off the weekend, the U.S. Supreme Court issued it’s ruling affirming previous decisions that IEEPA does not give the President the power to impose tariffs.

The Court left unresolved the issue of refunds for previous payments, and foreign-trade zones are still paying the tariffs on items in inventory. Entries are liquidating with IEEPA amounts intact. Doesn't look like this ends fast or easy.

The administration quickly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement an across the board 10% tariff on almost all merchandise not subject to Section 232 or Section 301 additional tariffs.

Merchandise from China saw a significant reduction in rates under the new tariff regime. FTZ operators are looking to a surge in Chinese imports, similar to the increases that have previously occurred when China tariffs were low temporarily.

The impact of the Epstein files continues to expand in Washington, with investigation records implicating U.S. Customs officers and supervisors in the trafficking of young women to a compound in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

As amounts collected, and potentially refunded, through tariffs grows into the billions, trade bills seem to be popping up in every corner of Congress. A recent one seeks to eliminate the ‘First Sale For Export’ rule, heavily used by apparel importers and many FTZs.

Top Story - Supreme Court Fills The Glass Halfway For FTZs

In a 6-3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs.

The decision did not explicitly order refunds of amounts paid to date. However, the decision that the tariffs were collected illegally has opened the door to refund claims, and the Supreme Court has tasked the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) with determining who, if anyone, will be eligible for refunds, and when.

The Administration has vowed to fight the requests for refunds in court, and is still collecting IEEPA tariffs on FTZ merchandise admitted before the decision. So foreign-trade zones got half the answer they were looking for in last month’s decision. It could take months or years of court challenges before the other half of the issues are resolved. Or perhaps midterm elections will turn the key?

As a share of total customs duties, the University of Pennsylvania estimated that IEEPA tariffs currently represent half of U.S. duty collections. This share had been increasing since the inception of the IEEPA tariffs on April 2, 2025. IEEPA tariffs collected to date were estimated to exceed $175B.

The day after the Supreme Court issued its IEEPA ruling, President Trump announced that he would implement a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 allows the President to impose tariffs for 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend them.

The President’s has signaled he plans to use other trade powers in the coming months to add further taxes on imports.

The day after his initial announcement of a new 10% tariff under Section 122, the President wrote on social media that the rate would be increasing “to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.”

Some White House staff members were caught off guard by that announcement. Because the Section 122 tariffs are in addition to Column 1 (MFN) duty rates, the 15% level would surely represent an increase over rates recently negotiated with key allies. Many foreign leaders have doubts about whether to keep the deals they agreed to.

Several governments have faced domestic criticism for concessions made to the United States — like in India, where farmers have condemned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s move to open agricultural markets. Indonesia had just signed its trade deal with the United States, adopting zero tariffs on American goods in return for a 19 percent tariff rate on its exports.

The Trump administration has indicated that it will use other legal authorities, like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose tariffs on countries individually based on their trade practices. The administration has also suggested it could expand the national security-related tariffs it has issued on various industries, like steel, minerals and cars, under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962. But those moves will take some time to prepare.

The new global tariff does have certain exemptions. The President carved out beef and other agricultural products, which he had previously spared from the steepest import taxes to keep prices from rising.

Nor will the new rate affect goods like foreign autos and steel, which are already subject to tariffs imposed on national security grounds. The President preserved a policy that allows imports covered by USMCA to remain tariff free. He also added some new exemptions to the tariffs, including Central American countries included in the 2004 CAFTA-DR trade deal.

Tech Tip: Foreign-Trade Zones Wait For CBP To Adopt CSMS Policy

U.S. Customs issued guidance to the trade in response to the February 20, 2026 Executive Order that terminated the collection of IEEPA ad valorem duties.

In a formal message CBP announced that “Duties imposed pursuant to IEEPA [. . .] will no longer be collected for goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:00 a.m. eastern time on February 24, 2026 [. . . ]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will update the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) programming, and all Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers applicable to the IEEPA tariffs will be inactive in ACE as of February 24, 2026.”

But that never happened, and no further messages have been issued to explain the delay. The IEEPA tariff codes are still active, and entries of PF status merchandise from foreign-trade zones are being rejected without the IEEPA codes.

The reason may be buried in the administration’s efforts to slow down any refund as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. Late last week the Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to wait at least 90 days before ruling on a wave of refund requests. So administration directives may be holding up the programming changes needed to implement the formal IEEPA guidance from U.S. Customs.

Questions about how to file entries for your PF status merchandise? Contact us at info@iscm.co.

FTZs Get Ready For The Surge

In response to the Supreme Court ruling striking down IEEPA tariffs, President Trump issued an Executive Order installing a new, global 10% tariff on import merchandise, with very limited exceptions.

For some countries, such as Britain, Argentina, Colombia and Australia, the new, stacked 10 percent tariff will actually be higher than the flat rates that previously applied to their exports to the United States. For others, like China, Vietnam, India and Brazil, the new rate will be significantly lower.

While the administration tries to reconcile those differences, importers are likely to try and bring in a barrage of import merchandise from these countries while their rates are lower.

Song Guoyou, an expert on U.S.-China economic relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, said the Supreme Court’s decision will likely boost some Chinese exports to the United States. The overall tariff on goods from China is expected to come down in part because the ruling invalidated the so-called fentanyl tariff that added 10 percent to the overall duties on Chinese imports.

Chinese retailers are also facing tougher policies in the European Union, which plans to impose a flat fee on packages worth under 150 euros beginning in July. That will make U.S. sales look even more attractive.

E-commerce stocks went up on Friday after the Supreme Court issued its decision. Etsy ended the day up 8 percent and eBay up 4 percent, while Amazon and Pinduoduo, the parent company of Chinese retailer Temu, closed up about 3 percent.

China is the “biggest winner” from the Supreme Court ruling, with an effective U.S. tariff rate now much closer to that of other countries, said Alicia García-Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at French investment bank Natixis.

The tariff ruling also comes just weeks before Trump’s upcoming trip to China, where he hopes to maintain a delicate trade truce with the world’s second-biggest economy.

Those who stand to lose the most include Japan and Taiwan, both of which had previously pledged hundreds of billions in U.S. investment in exchange for a tariff rate of 15%. Singapore and Australia also stand to lose since they already had a relatively favorable tariff rate of 10%.

“If you’re Taiwan, you’re like, why on earth did I commit to $250 billion if I’m getting the same tariffs?” said García-Herrero, who is based in Hong Kong.

First Sale On The Ropes For FTZs

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bill to eliminate the “first sale” method of customs valuation.

While the bill has a long way to go to become law, foreign-trade zones and other importers have long relied on first sale as a legitimate customs valuation option.

The Senators’ “Last Sale Valuation Act” would mandate that the U.S. customs value must be based on the “the price actually paid or payable by the buyer in the United States for the merchandise in the last sale that introduces the merchandise into the United States.”

The primary method of customs valuation is the transaction value method, substantiated by a commercial invoice from the supplier. In multi-tiered sale transactions involving a manufacturer, middleman and importer, the courts have long held that the price the manufacturer charged the middleman is a statutorily acceptable transaction value.

This means that the importer will save the tariffs and fees payable on the middleman’s markup. With tariffs at all-time highs, 'first sale' can result in substantial savings.

Historically, 'first sale' has been used by industries whose imports have been subject to high U.S. tariff rates (e.g., apparel, footwear, etc.). With the imposition of additional tariffs by the Trump administration beginning in 2018, more industries have been pursuing first sale as a legitimate customs valuation planning strategy to reduce their tariff exposure.

Foreign-Trade Zones Pummeled By New Reasons For CBP Retirements

Uniformed U.S. Customs officers are being associated with the highly publicized ICE enforcement actions, and heckled when they are seen in public.

Some officers have taken to arriving at FTZ meetings in unmarked vehicles to avoid identification, and unwanted public interaction.

Then a New York Times article named officers and supervisors in the U.S. Virgin Islands who were under criminal investigation for accepting favors in exchange for lenient scrutiny of women brought to his private island. This comes at a difficult time for CBP as it tries to recruit new Officers to replace a wave of expected retirement over the next several years.

The New York Times documented Jeffrey Epstein’s friendly relationships with several CBP officials, including at least one supervisor.

Mr. Epstein dispensed food, helicopter rides, financial advice and even musical gigs to a handful of CBP officers stationed on St. Thomas, the American port of entry that was near Little St. James, an island that Mr. Epstein owned.

At the same time, Mr. Epstein enjoyed concierge services from some of the customs officers in St. Thomas, according to emails and other records recently released by the Justice Department. They whisked him through inspections. And they helped him troubleshoot when he encountered problems at airports on the mainland.

Starting in 2019, those chummy relationships became the subject of a criminal investigation, the records show.

Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as federal prosecutors, spent more than a year looking into whether C.B.P. officers in St. Thomas allowed Mr. Epstein and his guests to avoid scrutiny as they entered the country.

The outcome of the investigation, which focused on at least four C.B.P. officers, including a supervisor, is unclear. There is no record of the officers' having been charged with crimes in connection to Mr. Epstein. The damage to CBP’s reputation is significant however, and may weigh in to the retirement decision of Officers at a time when CBP needs all the manpower and experience it can get.

FTZ Staff Activity

FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-36-2026) in FTZ 3H on behalf of North Bay Distribution Inc., Vacaville, CA on January 30, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-37-2026) in FTZ 30 on behalf of Petzl America, Salt Lake City, UT on February 2, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-38-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of IDC Made Solutions LLC, City of Industry, CA on February 3, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-39-2026) in FTZ 244 on behalf of Bridge Logistics Properties, Moreno Valley, CA on February 3, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-40-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of Tradelink Warehousing LLC, Compton, CA on February 2, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-41-2026) in FTZ 86 on behalf of Holman Logistics, Fredrickson, WA on February 3, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-42-2026) in FTZ 164A on behalf of Vallourec Star LP, Muskogee, OK on February 3, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-43-2026) in FTZ 281 on behalf of JG Trading Inc., Miami, FL on February 3, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-44-2026) in FTZ 50V on behalf of Damco Distribution Services Inc., Redlands, CA on February 4, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-45-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of Belnick LLC, Chino, CA on February 4, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-46-2026) in FTZ 119 on behalf of Revo Brands, Maple Grove, MN on February 4, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-47-2026) in FTZ 38Z on behalf of ZF Chassis Systems Duncan LLC, Spartanburg, SC on February 4, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-48-2026) in FTZ 280 on behalf of Semiconductor Component Industries LLC, Nampa, ID on February 4, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-49-2026) in FTZ 283B on behalf of Rough Country LLC, Dyersburg, TN on February 5, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-50-2026) in FTZ 15M on behalf of Paris Brothers Inc., Kansas City, MO on February 5, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-51-2026) in FTZ 26 on behalf of LANDAIR LOGISTICS LLC dba Covenant Logistics, Forest Park, GA on February 5, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-52-2026) in FTZ 72 on behalf of Electro-Spec Inc., Franklin, IN on February 5, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-53-2026) in FTZ 35Q on behalf of Almac Clinical Services LLC, Souderton, PA on February 5, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-54-2026) in FTZ 30 on behalf of Maggie Sottero Designs LLC, West Valley City, UT on February 5, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-55-2026) in FTZ 230L on behalf of TN Americas LLC, Kernersville/Greensboro, NC on February 6, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-56-2026) in FTZ 64 on behalf of BAE Systems Maritime Solutions Jacksonville LLC, Jacksonville, FL on February 6, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-57-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of DisCom International Inc., Laredo, TX on February 6, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-58-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of Tramitaciones Group Forwarding Inc., Laredo, TX on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-59-2026) in FTZ 119Q on behalf of Alula LLC, Roseville, MN on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-60-2026) in FTZ 58A on behalf of Somic America, Brewer/Bangor, ME on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-61-2026) in FTZ 183 on behalf of Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service Inc., Manor, TX on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-62-2026) in FTZ 811 on behalf of Exel Inc. dba DHL Supply Chain, Bow, NH on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-63-2026) in FTZ 26 on behalf of Lightera LLC, Norcross, GA on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-64-2026) in FTZ 207 on behalf of Southern Tactical LLC, Ashland, VA on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-65-2026) in FTZ 38AA on behalf of Bant Boru USA Inc., Greer, SC on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-66-2026) in FTZ 78P on behalf of Toyo Tire Holdings of America Inc., Lebanon, TN on February 9, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-67-2026) in FTZ 79H on behalf of Lithium Battery Company Intnl LLC, Tampa, FL on February 18, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-68-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of MAG Aerospace Industries LLC dba Monogram Systems, Carson, CA on February 10, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-69-2026) in FTZ 262 on behalf of Vantive US Healthcare LLC, Olive Branch, MS on February 10, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-70-2026) in FTZ 72 on behalf of PHOENIX Retail LLC, Columbus, OH on February 11, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-71-2026) in FTZ 40R on behalf of Norman Noble Inc., Highland Height, OH on February 11, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-72-2026) in FTZ 281N on behalf of Tentech Corporation, Miami, FL on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-73-2026) in FTZ 2N on behalf of Karl Senner LLC, Kenner, LA on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-74-2026) in FTZ 107I on behalf of Dee Zee Inc., Des Moines, IA on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-75-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of California Distribution Ctr Inc., Chino, CA on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-76-2026) in FTZ 93 on behalf of LifeScience Logistics LLC, Apex/Durham, NC on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-77-2026) in FTZ 110F on behalf of Rinchem Company LLC, Albuquerque, NM on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-78-2026) in FTZ 238F on behalf of Somic America, Wytheville, VA on February 12, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-79-2026) in FTZ 57H on behalf of Corning Optical Communications LLC, Newton/Hickory, NC on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-80-2026) in FTZ 40B on behalf of General Motors Corporation, Lordston, OH on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-81-2026) in FTZ 40S on behalf of Candor Logistics LLC, Cuyahoga County, OH on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-82-2026) in FTZ 21 on behalf of RTS Holdings dba RoadOne Intermodal Logistics, Summerville, SC on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-83-2026) in FTZ 104W on behalf of Komar Distribution Services, Pooler, GA on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-84-2026) in FTZ 30 on behalf of HydroBlok Inc., Salt Lake City, UT on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-85-2026) in FTZ 49AB on behalf of SciSafe Inc., East Brunswick, NJ on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-86-2026) in FTZ 26 on behalf of Trinidad Benham Corporation, LaGrange, GA on February 17, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-87-2026) in FTZ 83H on behalf of Corporate Warehousing Services, Decatur, AL on February 13, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-88-2026) in FTZ 46O on behalf of Quality Gold Inc., Fairfield, OH on February 18, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-89-2026) in FTZ 37 on behalf of Leon & Brothers Inc., Maybrook, NV on February 18, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-90-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of Tri-Link Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA on February 19, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-91-2026) in FTZ 5 on behalf of Wilmar LLC, Kent, WA on February 19, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-92-2026) in FTZ 216 on behalf of Essex Laboratories LLC, Chehalis, WA on February 19, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-93-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of Industrial Parts Depot LLC, Carson, CA on February 19, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-94-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of TDK Corporation of America, Cypress, CA on February 20, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-95-2026) in FTZ 72 on behalf of ISVAL USA Inc., Indianapolis, IN on February 20, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-96-2026) in FTZ 272G on behalf of Fisher Clinical Services, Lehigh County, PA on February 20, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-97-2026) in FTZ 38Z on behalf of ZF Chassis Systems Duncan LLC, Spartanburg, SCL on February 20, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-98-2026) in FTZ 21 on behalf of TURBOCAM Inc., Ladson, SC on February 23, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-99-2026) in FTZ 75Q on behalf of Chang Chun Arizona, Casa Grande, AZ on February 23, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-100-2026) in FTZ 247 on behalf of Wabtec Transportation Systems LLC, Erie/Grove City, PA on February 23, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-101-2026) in FTZ 40T on behalf of McBee Supply Corporation, Cuyahoga County, OH on February 25, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-102-2026) in FTZ 26 on behalf of Castle Metals Aerospace, Kennesaw, GA on February 25, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-103-2026) in FTZ 123K on behalf of JS International Inc., Denver, CO on February 25, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-104-2026) in FTZ 147 on behalf of Miri Technologies LLC, Leesport, PA on February 25, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-105-2026) in FTZ 75 on behalf of NRS Logios America Inc., Casa Grande, AZ on February 25, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-106-2026) in FTZ 57 on behalf of Corning Inc., Midland, NC on February 26, 2026
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-107-2026) in FTZ 71D on behalf of Pratt & Whitney, Middleton, CT on February 26, 2026

Foreign-Trade Zone Board Activity

- Eastman Chemical Co., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for paraxylene derivative products within Foreign-Trade Zone 204B in Kingsport, Tennessee. MORE
- Intel Foundry Corp., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for semiconductor products within Foreign-Trade Zone 110E in Rio Rancho and Albuquerque, New Mexico. MORE
- Atlantic Veal and Lamb, LLC, received approval to operate their Creston and Sterling, Ohio facilities as Foreign-Trade Zone 40Q. MORE
- Oerlikon Metco (US) Inc.; received approval to operate their Westbury, New York facility as Foreign-Trade Zone 37H. MORE
- General Electric Co., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for production and testing of jet engines within Foreign-Trade Zone 46 in Peebles, Ohio. MORE
- General Electric Co., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for commercial aerospace propulsion parts and engine cores within Foreign-Trade Zone 72 in Lafayette Indiana. MORE
- General Electric Co., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for commercial aerospace propulsion parts and engine cores within Foreign-Trade Zone 93 in Durham, North Carolina. MORE
- Coroplast Tape Corp., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for pressure sensitive tapes within Foreign-Trade Zone 38 in Rock Hill, North Carolina. MORE
- AFC Specialty Coatings Group, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for polymer or silicone coated fabrics within Foreign-Trade Zone 22 in Lake in the Hills, Illinois. MORE
- Recodeal Energy Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for galvanized steel within Foreign-Trade Zone 84 in Houston, Texas. MORE
- Essex Laboratories LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for mint oil blends within Foreign-Trade Zone 216 in Chehalis, Washington. MORE
- Alder SOL Holdings LLC dba StayOnline, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for power cords within Foreign-Trade Zone 93 in Henderson, North Carolina. MORE
- Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for inputs primarily for semiconductor industry within Foreign-Trade Zone 183 in Manor, Texas. MORE
- Wabtec Transportation Systems, LLC, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 247 in Erie, Pennsylvania. MORE
- CMS Circuits, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for electronic manufacturing services in aerospace, industrial, and medical applications within Foreign-Trade Zone 153 in Murrieta, California. MORE

No Cake And Ice Cream Yet:

It was another month of dynamic trade developments for the foreign-trade zone community. While there is cause for optimism that trade terms will stabilize soon, too much remains unsettled to do any celebrating just yet.

Negotiations with China resulted in a temporary pause in the sky-high rates FTZs had been paying on their imports. But recent rhetoric from Washington suggests the pause won’t last past the 90 days of the agreement. If it even lasts that long.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the use of IEEPA to place a 10% additional tariff on all imports overstepped presidential authority. The IEEPA tariffs are still being collected until higher courts make a final ruling. The financial stakes are HUGE for both sides.

An investment deal in U.S. Steel prompted the doubling of Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum beginning this Thursday. Nothing on the table suggests those 50% rates will be reduced anytime soon. Zones need to prepare accordingly.

Foreign-trade zone applications are down. Way down. Staff losses at the Foreign-Trade Zones Board and the loss of the NPF status option appear to be taking their toll. Bonded Warehouse applications? Still overwhelming CBP in certain ports.