FTZ’ine June 2026
June 2, 2026
To Sue Or Not To Sue
That is the question.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken the position that a single federal judge cannot mandate IEEPA refunds for everyone. CBP says you will have to sue them and get a Court Order for a refund of IEEPA duties paid on any entry in ‘final’ liquidation status.
The U.S. Court of International Trade has an issue with that. They say the necessary Court Order has already been issued. FTZs and other importers with entries in final liquidation status are caught in the crossfire. Recent lawsuits to recover Section 301 and Section 122 duties were costly and unsuccessful, giving pause to those thinking about joining yet another tariff suit against the government.
The Trump administration announced new Section 301 tariffs that will apply to almost every import into the United States. Duty rates are similar to the Section 122 tariffs these will replace. The new tariffs should take effect this month but exact dates for the cutover have not been announced.
FTI Consulting settled its export violations case with the Department of the Treasury. The $1M payment announced at the beginning of the month highlights the dangers of assisting prohibited organizations directly or indirectly.
The European Union finally ratified its trade deal with the United States. Now that more permanent Section 301 tariffs are set to go into effect, additional trade agreements may be in the future. Changes to Section 232 tariffs were also made last month, highlighting the Administration’s flexibility to use those tariffs to try and secure changes in trading behavior.
Our 250th Birthday is just around the corner! The FTZ’ine staff wishes everyone a safe and enjoyable 4th of July holiday.
Top Story - Bare Knuckles In New York
A growing dispute between the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is creating uncertainty for importers, Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) operators, users, and grantees seeking refunds of tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
At issue is approximately $166 billion in tariffs collected before the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration improperly used emergency powers to impose IEEPA duties. While the Court has ordered that importers be made whole, the government continues to argue that not every importer is automatically entitled to a refund.
Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade has been unusually direct in expressing his frustration. During a recent hearing, he praised CBP's efforts to build a refund system but questioned the government's legal strategy, stating, "Sometimes lawyers push legal positions beyond what is useful for the client." He went on to suggest that "the legal position pushed by the government may not be in the government's best interest."
The Court's position is straightforward. Judge Eaton ordered CBP to establish a process through which "all importers of record" could seek refunds of unlawfully collected tariffs. In the Court's view, if the tariffs were unconstitutional, every importer who paid them should have access to a refund regardless of whether they participated in one of the lawsuits challenging the duties.
The Administration's position is considerably narrower. The Department of Justice has argued that only companies directly involved in litigation are entitled to automatic relief. Importers outside those cases may be required to pursue separate legal remedies, creating the possibility that similarly situated companies could receive different treatment.
For FTZ operators and users, this distinction is more than a legal curiosity. Many FTZ participants paid duties on merchandise admitted and withdrawn from zones, or entered through traditional customs procedures. The difference between a universal refund program and a litigation-based refund program could determine whether companies recover substantial amounts of working capital or face years of additional legal expense.
CBP has already launched an online refund portal and has begun processing claims. According to testimony provided to the Court, approximately $90 billion in refund claims have been accepted and roughly $23 billion has already been directed to the Treasury Department for repayment. Customs officials indicated they are working aggressively to expand the system's capabilities and process additional categories of claims.
The challenge arises with older entries and liquidated transactions. At present, CBP has focused on claims involving entries that were either unliquidated or recently liquidated when the Supreme Court issued its decision. More complex claims involving older transactions remain in limbo while the appeal proceeds. Susan Thomas, CBP’s Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade, appeared before Judge Eaton at the beginning of the month and testified, "I can't speak to the appeal, but I can tell you I will be prepared. I am pushing our teams to the limit."
For FTZ Grantees, this dispute highlights a broader concern. Foreign-Trade Zones were designed to provide flexibility and predictability in customs administration. Yet the current litigation demonstrates how rapidly legal interpretations can affect duty liability, cash flow, and compliance planning. Many zone users are now evaluating whether they must take additional legal action to preserve potential refund rights.
The numbers involved in any potential litigation are staggering. Government filings indicate that approximately 330,000 importers may be entitled to refunds covering more than 53 million entries. While much of the refund process is underway, tens of billions of dollars remain unresolved. Some observers have warned that requiring importer-specific lawsuits could result in a "flood into the federal court system" as companies seek to recover the full complement of IEEPA duties paid.
Until the appellate courts provide additional guidance, the difference between the CIT's vision of universal refunds and the government's narrower interpretation could have significant financial consequences for companies throughout the Foreign-Trade Zone program.
Section 232 Tariffs Continue to See Changes
On June 1st, President Trump signed a new proclamation modifying the Section 232 tariff treatment of dozens of steel, aluminum, copper, agricultural, and industrial products. For Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) operators, users, and grantees, the changes present both opportunities and compliance challenges.
The proclamation reduced tariffs on some products while expanding coverage to others. The Administration described the action as a temporary adjustment intended to support productive economic activity in the United States.
The most publicized change involves agricultural and industrial equipment. Tariffs on many agricultural products, including combines, harvesters, and related equipment, were reduced from 25% to 15%. Similar treatment was extended to a broad range of fixed and mobile industrial equipment, including bulldozers, forklifts, and certain construction machinery imported from qualifying countries.
The proclamation also introduces a new incentive designed to encourage the use of U.S.-origin metals. Products meeting specific sourcing thresholds may qualify for a reduced 10% tariff rate. To qualify, at least 85% of the aluminum must be smelted and cast in the United States, at least 85% of the steel must be melted and poured in the United States, or at least 85% of the copper must be smelted and cast domestically. These levels had been 95% previously.
For FTZ users, these sourcing requirements may become just as important as tariff classifications. Companies that can document qualifying U.S. metal content may obtain substantially lower duty rates, creating new incentives to review supplier sourcing strategies and manufacturing processes.
At the same time, Customs and Border Protection expanded the list of derivative products subject to Section 232 duties. Several new tariff classifications were added, while dozens of others were reassigned to reduced duty categories.
Need help confirming the Section 232 reporting requirements for your products? Contact us at info@iscm.co.
Courts Swat Section 301 and Section 122 Tariff Challenges
For importers, Foreign-Trade Zone operators, users, and grantees, June brought two significant developments in the ongoing battle over presidential tariff authority. The cases demonstrate the role the Courts now play in trade policy.
The first development came on June 15th, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal filed by HMTX Industries challenging the authority of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to modify Section 301 tariffs imposed on imports from China. By denying the petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed a lower court ruling to stand, effectively ending years of litigation aimed at overturning the List 3 and List 4A tariffs. The litigation traces back nearly a decade.
Next, a federal appeals court cast doubt on a suit challenging the recent imposition of Section 122 tariffs, and reinstated collection of the fees.
The decisions mean that the Section 301 tariffs remain fully in force and that importers will not receive refunds for duties previously paid. Section 122 tariffs may yet be revoked but collection continues unabated in the meantime.
In 2017, USTR launched a Section 301 investigation into China's trade practices. The investigation resulted in the imposition of tariffs on thousands of Chinese products through Lists 1 and 2. Following Chinese retaliation, USTR expanded the scope of the tariffs through Lists 3 and 4A, covering an even broader universe of imports. Thousands of importers challenged those actions, arguing that USTR had exceeded its statutory authority by imposing entirely new tariffs rather than making limited modifications to existing measures.
After multiple rounds of litigation, the Court of International Trade upheld the tariffs in 2023, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision in 2025. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the case now closes the door on further judicial challenges. For importers, the message is clear: the courts have accepted a broad interpretation of USTR's authority under Section 307 of the Trade Act of 1974, and future administrations may have considerable flexibility to expand or modify Section 301 tariffs.
For FTZ operators and users, the practical implications are significant. Section 301 tariffs are no longer a temporary compliance issue awaiting judicial resolution. They have become a permanent planning consideration. Companies that source from China must continue evaluating tariff exposure, restructuring supply chains where feasible, reviewing tariff classifications, and considering FTZ strategies that can reduce or defer duty obligations.
Section 122 tariffs are not quite as settled. On May 7, 2026, a divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down the Trump Administration's 10% Section 122 tariff as exceeding presidential authority. The Court concluded that the Administration had relied on trade deficits and related economic indicators rather than the specific balance-of-payments measures contemplated by Congress when it enacted the statute. As a result, the Court held that the tariffs exceeded the authority granted by Section 122.
However, the decision came with an important limitation. The Court's remedy applies only to the three importer plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit: the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., and Basic Fun, Inc. Those parties are entitled to refunds and relief from future collections, but all other importers remain subject to the Section 122 tariffs unless they file their own actions, the tariffs expire, or a higher court orders broader relief.
The government immediately appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the appeals court has effectively postponed any broader action while the appeal proceeds. As a result, importers continue paying Section 122 duties even though a trial court has found them unlawful.
The bottom line for FTZ grantees, operators, and users is straightforward. In an environment where tariff programs can be created, modified, challenged, and reinstated in rapid succession, Foreign-Trade Zones remain one of the most valuable tools available for managing duty exposure and maintaining supply chain flexibility.
FTI Consulting Settles Russia Export Violation For $1.05M
The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a press release on June 1, 2026, announcing a $1,050,000 settlement with FTI Consulting, one of the largest business advisory firms in the country.
Between 2019 and 2021, FTI provided expert consulting services supporting litigation involving VTB Bank, a Russian state-owned financial institution subject to OFAC sectoral sanctions. Rather than contract directly with VTB, FTI structured its engagement through a law firm intermediary, invoicing the law firm while expecting the law firm to obtain reimbursement from VTB. The arrangement appeared to create separation between FTI and the sanctioned bank. OFAC concluded otherwise.
The compliance lessons are directly relevant to every firm engaged in international business. The central issue was not who signed the engagement letter. The issue was who ultimately benefited from the services and who ultimately bore responsibility for payment. Under OFAC's Directive 1 sanctions, U.S. persons were prohibited from extending new debt with a maturity greater than 14 days to VTB. OFAC determined that when FTI continued providing services and issuing invoices despite extended periods of nonpayment, it was effectively extending prohibited credit to the bank.
The agency's conclusion was blunt. As OFAC emphasized in the announcement, sanctions regulations prohibit parties from doing indirectly what they cannot do directly. Looking beyond the paperwork, regulators focused on what OFAC described as the "underlying economic and practical realities" of the arrangement. VTB approved the work, controlled the budget, benefited from the services, and was ultimately expected to fund the invoices. The intermediary structure did not change those facts.
According to OFAC, warning signs appeared almost immediately. FTI's compliance personnel recognized sanctions concerns before the engagement began and helped develop the payment structure. Yet after invoices went unpaid for months, FTI continued working, continued invoicing, and even participated in calls with VTB regarding overdue payments. One invoice remained outstanding for 198 days. Another remained unpaid for more than 90 days. Rather than reducing risk, those circumstances reinforced OFAC's conclusion that FTI was extending prohibited debt to a sanctioned institution.
OFAC identified several aggravating factors that increased the penalty. Among them was the firm's sophistication and global experience. Regulators specifically noted that FTI understood the sanctions risks, discussed them internally, and nevertheless failed to recognize that its ongoing conduct was creating prohibited debt. OFAC also emphasized that the arrangement obscured activity that might otherwise have been identified through normal sanctions screening procedures.
Although OFAC classified the violations as non-egregious, the agency doubled the base penalty from $525,000 to $1,050,000. The agency cited the importance of promoting future compliance among similarly situated firms. While FTI cooperated extensively with the investigation, provided documentation, enhanced its compliance program, and had no recent OFAC enforcement history, those actions mitigated but did not eliminate the consequences.
The case also highlights the importance of escalation protocols in compliance. FTI encountered multiple warning signs, including repeated nonpayment, direct discussions with the sanctioned entity regarding overdue invoices, and explicit acknowledgment from the law firm that it was not assuming the client's credit risk. Each event created an opportunity to reevaluate the arrangement before additional violations occurred. Effective compliance programs require not only screening tools but also mechanisms for reassessing transactions when circumstances change.
EU ratifies Trade Agreement With 301 Tariffs on the Horizon
After nearly a year of negotiations, delays, political drama, and tariff threats, the European Parliament has approved a key component of the trade agreement negotiated between the United States and the European Union.
While the vote brings a measure of certainty to transatlantic trade relations, it also arrives at a moment when a new wave of Section 301 tariffs will replace the IEEPA tariffs in effect when the agreement was negotiated.
Under the agreement, the European Union agreed to eliminate tariffs on a broad range of American industrial products, including machinery, automotive parts, and even lobster. The EU will also reduce tariffs on selected U.S. agricultural products. In return, many European goods entering the United States will continue to face tariffs of approximately 15%, with some products subject to even higher rates. The agreement represents one of the most significant trade arrangements between the United States and Europe in recent years.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen celebrated the parliamentary approval, stating, "With this milestone, we are days away from fulfilling our commitment to remove tariffs on imports of U.S. industrial goods." Her comments reflected relief after months of uncertainty and repeated delays in the ratification process.
The path to approval was far from smooth. Earlier parliamentary votes were postponed amid political tensions surrounding President Trump's comments regarding Greenland and later after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated several categories of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Even after negotiations resumed, uncertainty remained. Just days before the vote, President Trump publicly threatened 100% tariffs on French wine and Champagne over digital taxation disputes.
Although the European Parliament's vote effectively completes the political portion of the agreement, EU member states must still formally approve the arrangement. Several provisions also contain safeguards allowing portions of the deal to be suspended if either side fails to honor its commitments.
Other provisions are scheduled to sunset after 2029 unless renewed.
FTZ Staff Activity
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-262-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of North of 4 LLC, City of Industry, CA on May 18, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-263-2026) in FTZ 70 on behalf of Axle of Dearborn Inc. (Detroit Axle), Ferndale, MI on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-264-2026) in FTZ 70 on behalf of Heidtman Tubular Products LLC, Erie, MI on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-265-2026) in FTZ 2810 on behalf of Florida East Coast Railway LLC, Miami Springs, FL on May 18, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-266-2026) in FTZ 25 on behalf of Metric Marine Inc., Weston, FL on May 18, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-267-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of Omni Logistics LLC, Compton, CA on May 18, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-268-2026) in FTZ 21 on behalf of Robert Bosch LLC, Summerville, SC on May 19, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-269-2026) in FTZ 158I on behalf of Liebherr-America Inc. dba Liebherr Logistics USA co., Tupelo, MS on May 19, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-270-2026) in FTZ 28 on behalf of Fairhaven Shipyard Companies Inc., New Bedford, MA on May 19, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-271-2026) in FTZ 45 on behalf of Tire Group International, Portland, OR on May 19, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-272-2026) in FTZ 262 on behalf of Wetherill Associates Inc. dba WAI Global, Southaven, MS on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-273-2026) in FTZ 196E on behalf of Wabtec Transportation Systems LLC, Fort Worth/Haslet, TX on May 19, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-274-2026) in FTZ 173 on behalf of The Port of Grays Harbor, Aberdeen WA on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-275-2026) in FTZ 40 on behalf of Olon USA LLC, Concord, OH on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-276-2026) in FTZ 25 on behalf of Sharp International Distributors Inc., Pompano Beach, FL on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-277-2026) in FTZ 277C on behalf of Sub-Zero Group Inc., Goodyear, AZ on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-278-2026) in FTZ 82 on behalf of Airbus Americas Inc., Mobile, AL on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-279-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of CTL Forwarding LC, Laredo, TX on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-280-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of Intertrans Warehouse & Logistics Inc., Laredo, TX on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-281-2026) in FTZ 240 on behalf of Pratt & Whitney Engine Services Inc., Bridgeport, WV on May 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-282-2026) in FTZ 147N on behalf of SFS Group USA Inc., Reading, PA on May 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-283-2026) in FTZ 19C on behalf of Intrevet Inc. dba Merck Animal Health, Omaha, NE on May 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-284-2026) in FTZ 176K on behalf of Anderson Brecon Inc. dba PCI Pharma Services, Rockford, IL on May 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-285-2026) in FTZ 75Y on behalf of Derry Enterprises Inc. dba Field Fastener, Phoenix, AZ on May 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-286-2026) in FTZ 266 on behalf of Tekni-Plex Flexibles LLC dba TekniPlex Healthcare, Madison, WI on May 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-287-2026) in FTZ 32K on behalf of World Truck Parts LLC dba FORTPRO, Miami/Doral, FL on June 1, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-288-2026) in FTZ 32 on behalf of Swarm Transport LLC, Medley, FL on June 2, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-289-2026) in FTZ 198 on behalf of Bay Light Professional IT Services LLC, Port Orange, FL on June 2, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-290-2026) in FTZ 32 on behalf of Distritech Logistics LLC, Miami, FL on June 2, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-291-2026) in FTZ 7 on behalf of Venture Steel, Bayamon, PR on June 2, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-292-2026) in FTZ 32 on behalf of C.R. Gator Suppliers Inc., Miami, FL on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-293-2026) in FTZ 39L on behalf of Abbott Laboratories, Irving, TX on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-294-2026) in FTZ 25 on behalf of Miramar Logistics LLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-295-2026) in FTZ 68 on behalf of Robert Bosch LLC, El Paso, TX on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-296-2026) in FTZ 26AG on behalf of Terra Reform LLC, Cartersville, GA on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-297-2026) in FTZ 93 on behalf of Linde Gas & Equipment, Research Triangle Park, NC on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-298-2026) in FTZ 186 on behalf of Pratt & Whitney a division of RTX Corporation, North Berwick, ME on June 3, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-299-2026) in FTZ 72Z on behalf of Wabtec Transportation Systems LLC, Plainfield, IN on June 5, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-300-2026) in FTZ 21S on behalf of Boeing Company, Charleston/Orangeburg/Hanahan/Goose Creek, SC on June 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-301-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of PG Distribution LLC (Amparan Road), Laredo, TX on June 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-302-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of PG Distribution LLC (Lampazos Loop), Laredo, TX on June 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-303-2026) in FTZ 94 on behalf of Transmaritime Inc., Laredo, TX on June 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-304-2026) in FTZ 22 on behalf of Hellmann Worldwide Logistics Inc., Schiller Park, IL on June 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-305-2026) in FTZ 74 on behalf of Terminal Warehouse Company, Dundalk, MD on June 8, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-306-2026) in FTZ 163 on behalf of Pompina Mayaguez LLC, Ponce, PR on June 8, 2026
Foreign-Trade Zone Board Activity
-
- Phillips 66 Company, received approval to expand Subzone 49E in their Linden, New Jersey facility. MORE
- The Development Finance Authority of Summit County received approval as the new grantee for Foreign-Trade Zone 181. MORE
- Tekni-Plex Flexibles LLC (dba TekniPlex Healthcare), submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 266 in Madison, Wisconsin. MORE
- Callies Performance Products Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for auto parts within Foreign-Trade Zone 151 in Fostoria, Ohio. MORE
- Corvus Energy USA Ltd., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for maritime battery equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 129 in Bellingham, Washington. MORE
- Venture Steel, Inc., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 7 in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. MORE
- Shiseido America, Inc., received approval to operate their Cranbury and East Windsor, New Jersey facilities as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 200D. MORE
- Foxx Development, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for smartphones within Foreign-Trade Zone 153 in San Diego, California. MORE
- OneSubsea, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for subsea oil equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 124 in Bayou Vista, Louisiana. MORE
- Project and Construction Welding, Inc. dba IMS Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for marine watertight sliding doors within Foreign-Trade Zone 213 in Cape Coral, Florida. MORE
- Celanese Acetate LLC, received authorization of limited production activity of cellulose acetate tow and flake within Foreign-Trade Zone 238 in Narrows, Virginia. MORE
- Eastman Chemical Co., received authorization of limited production activity of cellulose acetate fibers within Foreign-Trade Zone 204 in Kingsport, Tennessee. MORE
- Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing, received authorization of production activity of pharmaceutical products within Foreign-Trade Zone 189 in Caledonia and Grand Rapids, Michigan. MORE
- SubCom, LLC, received authorization of production activity of undersea fiber-optic cables and repeaters within Foreign-Trade Zone 81 in Newington, New Hampshire. MORE
- Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for passenger motor vehicles within Foreign-Trade Zone 72 in Lafayette, Indiana. MORE
- Tesla Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for battery storage products and components within Foreign-Trade Zone 84 in Brookshire, Texas. MORE
- Pratt and Whitney, a division of RTX Corp., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 186 in North Berwick, Maine. MORE
- OCULUS Surgical, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for ophthalmic diagnostic equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 218 in Port St. Lucie, Florida. MORE
- Photonics Industries International, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for laser systems within Foreign-Trade Zone 52 in Ronkonkoma, New York. MORE
- Viasat, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for satellite communications technology within Foreign-Trade Zone 26 in Lawrenceville, Duluth, and Pendergrass, Georgia. MORE
- LOOP LLC, submitted an application to expand Subzone 124D in their St. James, Louisiana facility. MORE
- Fermi Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for modular nuclear power plant and natural gas power plant within Foreign-Trade Zone 252 in Panhandle, Texas. MORE
- Lutron Electronics Co., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for window shades within Foreign-Trade Zone 207 in Ashland, Virginia. MORE
- Pompina Mayaguez LLC, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 163 in Ponce, Puerto Rico. MORE
- Trinidad Benham Corp., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for rolls of aluminum foil and aluminum foil containers within Foreign-Trade Zone 26 in LaGrange, Georgia. MORE
- Energy Recovery Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for desalination equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 18 in San Leandro, California. MORE
- Rainbow Champaign LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for herbicides within Foreign-Trade Zone 114 in Champaign, Illinois. MORE
- Perlen Packaging LLC, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 44 in Whippany, New Jersey. MORE
- Fisher BioServices, received approval to operate their Frederick, Maryland facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 255C. MORE
- QubicaAMF Worldwide, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for bowling equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 207 in Mechanicsville, Virginia. MORE
- TN Americas LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for nuclear fuel containers within Foreign-Trade Zone 230 in Kernersville, North Carolina. MORE
- An application for production authority on behalf of Phillips 66 Co., was not approved within Foreign-Trade Zone 3 in Rodeo, California. MORE
- Dedicated Computing, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for computer systems within Foreign-Trade Zone 41 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. MORE
- Petainer Manufacturing USA, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for polyethylene terephthalate preforms within Foreign-Trade Zone 78 in Columbia, Tennessee. MORE
- ElringKlinger South Carolina, LLC, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 38 in Easley, South Carolina. MORE
- Phillips 66 Co., received approval to operate their Billings, Montana facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 274A. MORE
- Lithionics Battery, LLC, received authorization of production activity of lithium-ion battery systems and accessories within Foreign-Trade Zone 193 in Clearwater, Florida. MORE
- Super Micro Computer, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for high-performance computing systems within Foreign-Trade Zone 18 in San Jose, Fremont, and Milpitas, California. MORE
- Tight Line Composites, LLC, received authorization of limited production activity of carbon fiber profiles for wind turbine spar caps within Foreign-Trade Zone 102 in Earth City, Missouri. MORE
- IMRA America Inc., received authorization of production activity of femtosecond fiber laser systems within Foreign-Trade Zone 70 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MORE
- Plascore, Inc., received authorization of production activity of metal, aramid paper and plastic honeycomb within Foreign-Trade Zone 189 in Zeeland, Michigan. MORE
- Foreign-Trades Zones Board published a correction to the Denial of Production Authority for Phillips 66 Co., within Foreign-Trade Zone 3 in Rodeo, California. MORE
- Catalina Components, Inc., was denied authorization of production activity of vehicle parts within Foreign-Trade Zone 75 in Chandler, Arizona. MORE
- KLA Corp., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for semiconductor wafer fabrication tools within Foreign-Trade Zone 18 in Milpitas, California. MORE
- Rose Electronics Distributing Co., LLC dba Rose Batteries, received authorization of limited production activity of battery packs within Foreign-Trade Zone 18 in San Jose, California. MORE
- 3nStar, Inc., received authorization of production activity of point of sale terminals within Foreign-Trade Zone 32 in Doral, Florida. MORE
- Boart Longyear Co., received authorization of production activity of diamond drill bits within Foreign-Trade Zone 30 in West Valley City, Utah. 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.
