FTZ’ine July 2026
June 25, 2026
FTZ’ine September 2026
September 1, 2026
Oh Canada
Our Northern Neighbors just can’t seem to get any traction in trade negotiations with the United States.
An impatient Administration will use an untested provision in trade law to add a 50% tariff to certain Canadian goods later this month. If that special someone has been asking for a hockey stick this coming holiday season, you might want to pick one up now before they get a lot more expensive. Yes, hockey sticks are on the list.
FTZ operators and users spent the end of last month making the transition to additional trade remedy tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Over 60 new HTS codes were implemented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enforce the new provisions.
CBP won Round 1 in its disagreement with the Court of International Trade (CIT) over IEEPA refunds for entries in ‘final’ liquidation status. Refunds are only being issued to the 3,000+ importers who have won a specific judgement for such entries. That’s about 1% of affected importers.
The Trump administration announced a new framework for reduced Section 232 duties on aluminum imports for companies that commit to investing in U.S. production.
The Senate has moved on legislation meant to punish countries that trade with Russia. The measure, championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, gives the President new authority to raise tariffs on countries that purchase Russian goods. The broad impact of the proposal could easily spill into many FTZ operations in the form of 100% - 500% tariff levies.
Summer keeps getting hotter. The FTZine staff hopes everyone enjoys the last few weeks of the season!
Top Story - FTZs Grind Through Section 122 Transition
Last month FTZ operators and users found themselves transitioning all the Section 122 trade remedy tariff codes in their inventory systems to new codes announced in a Federal Register Notice. Announced about 6 hours before they went into effect. A mad scramble in FTZs across the country ensued.
Over the past seventeen months, the Administration has moved from relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and now to Section 301 of the same statute, as successive legal challenges forced policymakers to seek new statutory authority in order to keep the additional tariffs in place.
This rapid succession of tariff changes, each with a completely new set of required HTS codes, has kept weary FTZ operators and users busy trying to stay ahead of the compliance challenges that came with each transition in the tariffs. (more)
The Administration's original strategy for additional tariffs centered on IEEPA, using national emergency authority to impose broad "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from numerous trading partners. However, a February Supreme Court ruling invalidated those tariffs and ordered $160B in collected duties to be refunded. The ruling represented one of the most significant judicial setbacks to presidential tariff authority in recent decades and forced the Administration to identify an alternative legal mechanism to preserve its broader trade agenda.
As an interim solution, the Administration turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that had never before been used to impose tariffs. Section 122 permits temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments concerns but limits those measures to 150 days. Although the Administration successfully implemented a temporary 10 percent tariff, authority to use Section 122 expired on July 24th.
Next, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) implemented new, replacement tariffs under Section 301 following an investigation into whether sixty countries maintain and effectively enforce prohibitions on imports produced with forced labor. Unlike the emergency authorities previously invoked, Section 301 has an established legal history and survived multiple court challenges during President Trump's first term. However, it has never before been applied so broadly across dozens of countries simultaneously.
Critics of the new tariffs contend that the forced-labor investigation serves primarily as a legal justification for maintaining tariffs that courts have already rejected under other statutes. Peter Harrell, a former Biden Administration official and visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School, argued that "U.S.T.R. is using this forced labor investigation as a pretext to impose tariffs that Trump wants to impose for his own economic theories and preferences," adding that "it's not really about forced labor."
Similar concerns have been raised in Congress, where lawmakers questioned whether the Administration is stretching Section 301 beyond its original purpose. These criticisms, combined with a fresh legal challenge to the President’s Section 301 authortity led the Administration to redouble its own forced-labor prevention efforts.
Just before August began, That led the Department of Homeland Security to add 43 new companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List just a few days ago. The additions bring the total number of restricted entities to 187. Those withhold release orders bring their own headaches to importers as it will become almost impossible to import merchandise from any of these newly-listed companies.
The new Section 301 tariff schedule establishes different duty rates for each of the 60 countries investigated. Products from countries such as Canada, Mexico, India, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom generally face an additional 10% duty. Certain products from the European Union, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan are subject to effective rates ranging from 10% to 12.5%, while all remaining investigated economies generally face a 12.5% additional tariff. The USTR also created limited exemptions and established tariff-rate quotas for certain textile and apparel imports tied to U.S. cotton purchases.
The progression from IEEPA to Section 122 and now to Section 301 demonstrates that while the legal basis for U.S. tariffs may continue to evolve, the Administration's commitment to using tariffs as a central trade policy tool remains unchanged. For the Foreign-Trade Zone community, this means continued compliance challenges, and perhaps frequent reassessment of sourcing strategies as the tariffs are adjusted.
CBP Issues CAPE Filing Update
At the end of July, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) gave the Court of International Trade (CIT) an update on CBP refund processing of duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
As of July 10, CBP had received 229,609 CAPE declarations, with 161,792 successfully passing file validation. Those accepted declarations cover 24.4 million import entries, of which 16.74 million entries have already been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties.
CBP reported that approximately $122B in refunds have now been accepted for processing through CAPE. Of that amount, approximately $86B in duties and interest has already been certified and transmitted to the U.S. Treasury for payment.
CBP announced that it has also expanded CAPE's capabilities; new functionality deployed in late June now permits importers to submit entries flagged for reconciliation that had not yet been finalized through a Reconciliation Entry. As of July 10, nearly 2 million reconciliation entries had already been accepted for processing.
Less clear is the handling for the final class of entries awaiting refund, ‘finally’ liquidated entries. The CIT has now formally ordered CBP to reliquidate finally liquidated entries in more than 3,700 importer cases, providing the legal authority CBP felt necessary to issue refunds.
The orders give importers that filed individual CIT actions a court-ordered path to recover IEEPA duties on finally liquidated entries. However, importers that have not filed suit currently have no confirmed mechanism for obtaining IEEPA refunds.
CBP will provide Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) submission instructions directly to plaintiffs' counsel of record. Once those requirements are satisfied, only those 3,700 plaintiffs may submit CAPE declarations covering finally liquidated entries, with refunds issued following CBP's acceptance of the declarations.
For importers that have not filed suit, the path to refunds on finally liquidated entries remains unresolved. Potential relief depends on pending proceedings before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and unresolved class certification motions at the CIT, neither of which presently provides a certain outcome or timeline.
Need help accelerating your CAPE refunds? Contact us at info@iscm.co.
Administration Ready To Deal For Aluminum Production
President Trump issued a Proclamation last month creating a new incentive program designed to expand domestic primary aluminum production by offering reduced Section 232 tariffs to companies that commit to building, expanding, or modernizing U.S. smelting capacity.
The Administration is offering targeted tariff relief as a reward for measurable domestic investment.
Under the Proclamation, the Department of Commerce will establish a formal process for companies to submit “onshoring plans” covering new primary aluminum facilities, expansions of existing plants, or refurbishment projects intended to increase output or operating efficiency. To qualify, an applicant must commit to beginning construction by January 20, 2029, although Commerce may impose additional eligibility, documentation, and performance requirements.
Companies with approved plans may import a designated quantity of primary aluminum at half the otherwise applicable Section 232 tariff rate. With the current rate generally set at 50 percent, an approved participant could import qualifying primary aluminum at a 25 percent rate, creating potentially significant duty savings during the period in which new domestic capacity is being developed.
The amount eligible for reduced treatment will be tied to the “reasonably anticipated annual production” of the completed U.S. facility. This structure is intended to link import relief directly to future domestic output rather than provide an unrestricted tariff exemption. For refurbishment projects, the available tariff adjustment will be limited to the value of the company’s investment, further connecting the benefit to the scale of the underlying capital commitment.
Commerce will retain broad discretion when evaluating proposed projects. The Secretary may consider “all relevant factors he deems appropriate,” including commercial feasibility, the reasonableness of projected production, financing, construction schedules, and the project’s contribution to national security. The proclamation specifically directs Commerce to administer the program consistently with the need to address the “national security threat” attributed to dependence on foreign aluminum.
The program is expected to build on the electronic application model used in the 2025 import adjustment offset program for certain Canadian and Mexican automotive products. While that precedent suggests the possibility for a streamlined filing process, aluminum onshoring applications are likely to require more extensive technical, financial, sourcing, and ownership disclosures because the tariff benefit could remain tied to a facility for several years.
The relief applies only to primary aluminum and does not extend to derivative aluminum articles, fabricated products, or general industrial equipment. This distinction is important for companies that import both raw aluminum and finished or semi-finished goods. A business may qualify for reduced duties on a defined quantity of primary aluminum while continuing to pay the full applicable Section 232 rate on downstream products outside the program.
Russia Sanctions Bill May Have Broad FTZ Impact
The U.S. Senate has moved closer to approving a sweeping sanctions package intended to increase economic pressure on Russia and the foreign governments and companies that continue to support Russian trade. The legislation combines traditional sanctions with unusually broad tariff authorities, creating potentially significant consequences for importers, global manufacturers, and the Foreign-Trade Zone community.
Senators voted 86 to 12 to advance the bill, positioning it for final passage in the upper chamber. The measure has broad bipartisan support, 62 co-sponsors, and the backing of the White House, although its path through the House remains uncertain. The legislation was renamed in honor of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, who had worked with Senator Richard Blumenthal on the legislation.
The central objective is to restrict Russia’s access to energy revenue and international commercial networks that help sustain its war effort. The bill would impose sanctions on Russian officials, energy companies, and vessels associated with the country’s so-called shadow fleet, which is used to transport oil outside conventional trading and insurance channels. It would also extend certain existing sanctions involving Iran.
Foreign-Trade Zones could be impacted not only by 100% tariffs on U.S. trading partners, but by retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. The proposal could double the cost of imports from China, India, and Turkey, major importers of Russian energy products.
Other versions of the proposal have contemplated tariffs of up to 500 percent on Russian imports, underscoring the extraordinary scale of the authority under consideration.
Supporters view these tariffs as leverage against governments that continue to provide Moscow with export revenue. The goal is to raise the cost of purchasing Russian oil and gas while encouraging major trading partners to diversify their energy supplies. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the legislation would demonstrate to Russian President Vladimir Putin that “he can’t bully Ukraine” and that the United States “stands by” its ally.
The tariff provisions have nevertheless generated opposition from lawmakers concerned about granting the President yet another expansive trade authority. House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden warned that “it is extremely dangerous to give President Trump massive new tariff powers,” citing what they described as the “corrupt, chaotic, and inflationary” effects of earlier tariff actions.
Those concerns reflect the possibility that sanctions directed at Russian energy customers could extend well beyond petroleum trade. A tariff imposed on all goods from a targeted country could affect thousands of unrelated products, components, and raw materials. For companies sourcing from China, India, Turkey, or another designated jurisdiction, the measure could abruptly increase landed costs even when the imported merchandise has no direct connection to Russia.
Atlantic Council analyst Maia Nikoladze cautioned that China has historically responded to U.S. economic pressure with countermeasures. “Whenever the U.S. is imposing tariffs or increasing economic pressure on China, China responds with countermeasures,” she said, adding that Beijing would likely react similarly if targeted under the new legislation.
Possible countermeasures could include tariffs, export restrictions, or licensing controls on strategically important materials used in semiconductor, energy, defense, and advanced manufacturing supply chains. That prospect is especially important for FTZ users that rely on global sourcing models or maintain inventory involving critical minerals, electronics, industrial components, or products originating in countries that could become subject to secondary tariffs.
But the vast majority of Democrats still voted to advance the legislation Tuesday. Only 11 Democrats and Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) voted against the bill. House action must wait until their summer recess ends.
Administration Dusts Off Section 338 To Press Canada Trade Discussions
In a historic expansion of U.S. trade enforcement authority, President Trump has invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for the first time to impose additional tariffs on selected Canadian imports.
Through three Presidential Proclamations issued on July 20th, the Administration announced a new 50% duty on designated dairy products, alcoholic beverages, and motor vehicle-related products, marking the first use of a trade statute that has existed for nearly a century.
Section 338 authorizes the President to “offset any burden or disadvantage placed on the commerce of the United States by an unequal imposition or discrimination by a foreign country by specifying and declaring additional duties.”
The Administration argues that Canada has discriminated against U.S. commerce through restrictive tariff-rate quotas, automotive trade policies, and limitations on the sale and distribution of American alcoholic beverages. Unlike previous tariff actions that focused primarily on national security or unfair trade practices, these measures are expressly designed to respond to alleged discriminatory treatment by a close trading partner.
The proclamations identify several Canadian policies that the Administration believes justify action under Section 338. These include Canada's administration of dairy tariff-rate quotas under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), restrictions affecting the distribution of U.S. alcoholic beverages, and automotive policies that the White House contends encourage manufacturers to invest in Canada rather than the United States. According to the accompanying fact sheet, Canada chose to "discriminate against the United States rather than address Canadian trade barriers."
The new duties will take effect later this month unless the two sides reach an agreement. The proposed tariffs cover a broad range of Canadian products, including honey, cosmetics, paper products, plywood, textiles, apparel, machinery, furniture, tools, sporting goods, fishing equipment, essential oils, metal products, plastics, and numerous industrial inputs. FTZ users and operators should therefore review the annexes carefully rather than relying solely on product descriptions contained in the proclamation titles.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the program is that the additional 50 percent duty applies regardless of whether a product qualifies for preferential treatment under USMCA. For Grantees, this may mean more local interest in the FTZ program from companies who had previously found no financial benefit to the program.
The proclamations also specify that the Section 338 duties will stack on top of any otherwise applicable customs duties. This means affected products may become subject to normal Column 1 duty rates, antidumping or countervailing duties where applicable, and the new Section 338 tariff. The only notable exception is that products already subject to Section 232 tariffs—including many steel, aluminum, copper, automotive, semiconductor, and wood products—will not be subject to the additional Section 338 duty. Other exemptions include certain energy products, potash, civil aircraft covered by the WTO Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, specified fish products, and certain critical minerals.
The Administration has indicated that the new duties are intended to encourage negotiations rather than permanently restrict trade. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already stated that discussions between the two governments will intensify before the August 19 implementation date, and no retaliatory Canadian tariffs have yet been announced. Nevertheless, the proclamations provide no conditions or timeline for removing the duties, leaving businesses with little certainty regarding their duration.
FTZ Staff Activity
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-307-2026) in FTZ 1380 on behalf of Levi-Strauss & Co., Groveport, OH on June 9, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-308-2026) in FTZ 50AK on behalf of Sanyo Denki America Inc., Torrance, CA on June 10, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-309-2026) in FTZ 20 on behalf of Port Norfolk Commodity Warehouse, Norfolk, VA on June 10, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-310-2026) in FTZ 26AH on behalf of Viasat, Lawrenceville/Duluth/Atlanta/Pendergrass, GA on June 11, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-311-2026) in FTZ 30J on behalf of Quality Distribution LLC, Salt Lake City, UT on June 11, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-312-2026) in FTZ 214E on behalf of Frontier Scientific Solutions LLC, Wilmington, NC on June 11, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-313-2026) in FTZ 135F on behalf of Willis Custom Yachts LLC, Martin County, FL on June 12, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-314-2026) in FTZ 100F on behalf of NK Parts Industries Inc., Shelby County, OH on June 15, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-315-2026) in FTZ 122Z on behalf of Cimbar Resources Inc., Corpus Christi, TX on June 12, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-316-2026) in FTZ 44 on behalf of Perlen Packaging LLC, Newark, SC on June 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-317-2026) in FTZ 148D on behalf of Industrial Commutator Corporation, Maryville, TN on June 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-318-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of FurniturePros Logistics Solution, Walnut, CA on June 15, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-319-2026) in FTZ 2Q on behalf of Kinder Morgan Inc., Marrero, LA on June 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-320-2026) in FTZ 81K on behalf of Tabletop Tycoon Inc. dba Tycoon Games, Londonderry, NH on June 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-321-2026) in FTZ 84 on behalf of Premium Oilfield Technologies Management LLC, Houston, TX on June 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-322-2026) in FTZ 38S on behalf of Vayan Group LLC, Spartanburg, SC on June 17, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-323-2026) in FTZ 153Q on behalf of CMS Circuits Inc., Murietta, CA on June 17, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-324-2026) in FTZ 25 on behalf of American Cruise-Aid Logistics Inc., Hollywood, FL on June 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-325-2026) in FTZ 25 on behalf of FHG Marine Engineering Inc., Pompano Beach, FL on June 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-326-2026) in FTZ 230 on behalf of Gildan Activewear Inc., Eden, NC on June 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-327-2026) in FTZ 15N on behalf of Mean Well USA Inc., Kansas City, MO on June 23, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-328-2026) in FTZ 171 on behalf of Sumika Semiconductor Materials Texas Inc., Baytown, TX on June 23, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-329-2026) in FTZ 281 on behalf of DHL Global Forwarding, Doral, FL on June 24, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-330-2026) in FTZ 106 on behalf of Resonance Inc. dba DD Audio, Oklahoma City, OK on June 24, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-331-2026) in FTZ 119O on behalf of TK Trading Company Inc. dba Storm Creek, Eagan, MN on June 24, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-332-2026) in FTZ 75 on behalf of Amkor Technology Arizona Inc., Peoria, AZ on June 24, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-333-2026) in FTZ 46L on behalf of Hit Promotional Products Inc., Fairfield, OH on June 26, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-334-2026) in FTZ 281 on behalf of ProWinch LLC, Miami, FL on June 26, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-335-2026) in FTZ 196 on behalf of Proximo Spirits Inc., Fort Worth, TX on June 26, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-336-2026) in FTZ 81 on behalf of TURBOCAM Inc., Stafford County, NH on June 26, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-337-2026) in FTZ 72 on behalf of Azenta US Inc., Plainfield, IN on June 29, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-338-2026) in FTZ 127F on behalf of M.G. Suber & Associates LLC, Columbia, SC on June 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-339-2026) in FTZ 18F on behalf of Lam Research Corporation, Livermore, CA on June 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-340-2026) in FTZ 84 on behalf of Enerflex Energy Systems Inc., Houston, TX on June 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-341-2026) in FTZ 75I on behalf of Hanesbrands LLC, Kings Mountain, NC on July 1, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-342-2026) in FTZ 84 on behalf of Hermann Warehousing Corporation, Houston, TX on July 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-343-2026) in FTZ 155 on behalf of Kerrville Public Utility Board Public Facility Corporation, Garwood, TX on July 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-344-2026) in FTZ 207G on behalf of Lutron Electronics Co. Inc., Ashland, VA on July 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-345-2026) in FTZ 80I on behalf of EKK Eagle America Inc., San Antonio, TX on July 7, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-346-2026) in FTZ 244 on behalf of One Worldwide Logistics LLC, Corona, CA on July 7, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-347-2026) in FTZ 21T on behalf of Translucent Solar LLC, Charleston, SC on July 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-348-2026) in FTZ 71E on behalf of RBC Aircraft Products Inc., Windsor Locks, CT on July 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-349-2026) in FTZ 138M on behalf of Pinnacle Warehousing Solutions LLC, Cambridge, OH on July 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-350-2026) in FTZ 21G on behalf of Agru CHS Mfg LLC, North Charleston/Andrews, SC on July 9, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-351-2026) in FTZ 76 on behalf of GR Electronics Inc. dba Waterbury Electronic Supply Inc., Waterbury, CT on July 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-352-2026) in FTZ 38N on behalf of Electrolux Home Products Inc., Anderson, SC on July 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-353-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of Conquer Nation Inc., Los Angeles, CA on July 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-354-2026) in FTZ 89 on behalf of Long Mountain Outfitters LLC, Las Vegas, NV on July 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-355-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of MKS Instruments Inc., Irvine, CA on July 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-356-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of Joffroy Group LLC, Laredo, TX on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-357-2026) in FTZ 80 on behalf of Independent Rough Terrain Center, Cibolo, TX on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-358-2026) in FTZ 84 on behalf of Quirch Foods LLC, Harris County, TX on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-359-2026) in FTZ 84 on behalf of Sprint Transport LLC, La Porte, TX on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-360-2026) in FTZ 84AL on behalf of fleetzero Inc., Houston, TX on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-361-2026) in FTZ 43 on behalf of II Stanley Co. Inc., Battle Creek, MI on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-362-2026) in FTZ 84AM on behalf of Tesla Inc., Brookshire, TX on July 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-363-2026) in FTZ 152C on behalf of The Braun Corporation dba BraunAbility, Winamac, IN on July 17, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-364-2026) in FTZ 1 on behalf of DHL Global Forwarding, Springfield Gardens, NY on July 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-365-2026) in FTZ 2 on behalf of The Kearney Companies Inc., Harahan, LAon July 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-366-2026) in FTZ 281 on behalf of Fax Cargo, Miami, FL on July 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-367-2026) in FTZ 40 on behalf of Total Distribution Inc., Mogadore, OH on July 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-368-2026) in FTZ 281 on behalf of World Brands US, Doral, FL on July 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-369-2026) in FTZ 490 on behalf of Western Carriers Inc., Teterboro, NJ on July 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-370-2026) in FTZ 84AN on behalf of Aker BioMarine Manufacturing LLC, Houston, TX on July 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-371-2026) in FTZ 59F on behalf of Molex LLC, Lincoln, NE on July 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-372-2026) in FTZ 43 on behalf of Bleistahl North America LP, Battle Creek, MI on July 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-373-2026) in FTZ 1 on behalf of Lieber & Solow LTD, New York, NY on July 24, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-374-2026) in FTZ 75T on behalf of Green Worldwide Shipping LLC, Phoenix, AZ on July 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-375-2026) in FTZ 168 on behalf of Hithium Tech USA Inc., Mesquite, TX on July 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-376-2026) in FTZ 138 on behalf of Howmet Aerospace Inc., Chillicothe, OH on July 23, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-377-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of Tolead Logistics US Inc., Vernon, CA on July 23, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-378-2026) in FTZ 185 on behalf of EURO-COMPOSITES Corporation, Elkwood, VA on July 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-379-2026) in FTZ 147 on behalf of Exel Inc. dba DHL Supply Chain USA, Annville, PA on July 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-380-2026) in FTZ 49 on behalf of Global Interactive Logistics, Secaucus, NJ on July 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-381-2026) in FTZ 45 on behalf of Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC, Portland, OR on July 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-382-2026) in FTZ 189 on behalf of Helix Steel, Grand Rapids, MI on July 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-383-2026) in FTZ 75 on behalf of Amkor Technology Arizona Inc., Peoria, AZ on July 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-384-2026) in FTZ 281P on behalf of Lilly and Associates International Transportation Group, Medley, FL on July 29, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-385-2026) in FTZ 70 on behalf of Lina Transportation LLC, Walled Lake, MI on July 29, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-386-2026) in FTZ 79J on behalf of Tampa Bay Fisheries, Dover, Fl on July 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-387-2026) in FTZ 222 on behalf of Vulcaflex Inc., Auburn, AL on July 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-388-2026) in FTZ 174 on behalf of Belden Incorporated, Tucson, AZ on July 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-389-2026) in FTZ 196 on behalf of DSV Contract Logistics LLC, Fort Worth, TX on July 30, 2026
Foreign-Trade Zone Board Activity
-
- Iwis Drive Systems, LLC, received authorization of production activity of customized parts and drive system components within Foreign-Trade Zone 72 in Whitestown, Indiana. MORE
- BASF Mobile Emissions Catalysts LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for mobile emissions catalyst products within Foreign-Trade Zone 83 in Huntsville, Alabama. MORE
- Foreign-Trades Zones Board published a correction to the Denial of Production Authority for Catalina Components, Inc., within Foreign-Trade Zone 75 in Chandler, Arizona. MORE
- Foxlink Texas, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for printed circuit board assemblies within Foreign-Trade Zone 196 in Fort Worth, Texas. MORE
- Harloff Manufacturing Co., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for solar power frames within Foreign-Trade Zone 43 in Lawton, Michigan. MORE
- Corning Optical Communications LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for fiber optic cables within Foreign-Trade Zone 230 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. MORE
- Corning Optical Communications LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for fiber optic cables within Foreign-Trade Zone 57 in Newton and Hickory, North Carolina. MORE
- Tesla, Inc., received approval to expand Subzone 18G in their Tracy, California facility. MORE
- Kerrville Public Utility Board Public Facility Corp, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 155 in Garwood, Texas. MORE
- Sonnell Realty IV, LLC, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 61 in Bayamón, Puerto Rico. MORE
- Webco Industries, Inc., received approval to operate their Kellyville, Oklahoma facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 164B. MORE
- Oerlikon Metco (US) Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for surface coatings and application equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 37 in Westbury, New York. MORE
- Linde Gas and Equipment Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for high purity gases for semiconductor manufacturing within Foreign-Trade Zone 93 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. MORE
- Pfizer Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for pharmaceutical products within Foreign-Trade Zone 43 in Kalamazoo and Portage, Michigan. MORE
- PolyPeptide Laboratories Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for peptides within Foreign-Trade Zone 202 in Torrance, California. MORE
- Pratt and Whitney Engine Services, Inc.; received approval to operate their Bridgeport, West Virginia facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 240B. MORE
- Total Distribution Inc., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 40 in Mogadore, Ohio. MORE
- Pratt and Whitney, a Division of RTX Corp., received approval to operate their North Berwick, Maine facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 240B. MORE
- P.J. Wallbank Springs, Inc., received authorization of limited production activity of spring pack assemblies used in automotive transmissions within Foreign-Trade Zone 210 in Port Huron, Michigan. MORE
- Eastman Chemical Co., received authorization of production activity of paraxylene derivative products within Foreign-Trade Zone 204 in Kingsport, Tennessee. MORE
- General Electric Co., received authorization of production activity of commercial aerospace propulsion parts and engine cores within Foreign-Trade Zone 72 in Lafayette, Indiana. MORE
- General Electric Co., received authorization of production activity of commercial aerospace propulsion parts and engine cores within Foreign-Trade Zone 93 in Durham, North Carolina. MORE
- ifm prover USA, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for sensors, controllers, software and systems for industrial automation within Foreign-Trade Zone 35 in Malvern, Pennsylvania MORE
- Pactron, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for printed circuit board assemblies within Foreign-Trade Zone 18 in Santa Clara, California. MORE
- GE Gas Turbines (Greenville) LLC, received authorization of limited production activity of gas turbines within Foreign-Trade Zone 38 in Greenville, South Carolina. MORE
- PINNACLEMOD LLC, received authorization of limited production activity of prefabricated modular steel buildings within Foreign-Trade Zone 173 in Aberdeen, Washington. MORE
- SSI Shredding Systems, Inc., received authorization of limited production activity of industrial shredders and compactors within Foreign-Trade Zone 45 in Wilsonville and Portland, Oregon. MORE
- Intel Corp., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for semiconductor products within Foreign-Trade Zone 75 in Chandler, Arizona. MORE
- Hithium Tech USA Inc., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 168 in Forney, Texas. MORE
- Energy Recovery, Inc., received approval to operate their San Leandro, California facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 18X. MORE
- Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for pharmaceutical products within Foreign-Trade Zone 46 in Cincinnati, Ohio. MORE
- Aptera Motors Corp., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for solar electric vehicles within Foreign-Trade Zone 153 in Carlsbad, California. MORE
- Omega Holdings, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for aftermarket air conditioning components within Foreign-Trade Zone 126 in Sparks, Nevada. MORE
- General Electric Co., received authorization of limited production activity of production and testing of jet engines within Foreign-Trade Zone 46 in Peebles, Ohio. MORE
- Webco Industries, Inc., received authorization of limited production activity of steel tubing within Foreign-Trade Zone 164 in Kellyville, Oklahoma. MORE
- Industrial Parts Depot, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for engine parts and components within Foreign-Trade Zone 202 in Carson, 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.
