FTZ’ine September 2025

FTZ’ine November 2025

November 11, 2025

FTZ’ine October 2025

One Battle After Another

Leonardo DiCaprio has a new movie out about working in international trade. We haven’t had time to see it yet, but the reviews are pretty good. Maybe we should all go see it together?

To highlight just a few of the battles the FTZ community is waging right now:

September began with a 50% tariff levy on most Indian goods in response to India’s Russian oil purchases. That led a new class of importers to start calling their Grantees, frantic for relief from the sudden payment obligations.

Then Grantees were stunned as a massive ICE raid halted construction of a multi-billion-dollar foreign direct investment project. Economic development professionals are struggling to decipher, and explain, the mixed messages in the dramatic action.

Yesterday the Trump administration announced that 10 percent tariffs on timber and lumber, and 25 percent duties on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture would go into effect on Oct. 14th. The new classes of Section 232 tariffs raise the prospect of whole new classes of derivative products.

A WRO was issued for one of the largest bicycle makers on the planet. FTZs haven’t seen a blockage of this magnitude in awhile.

Non-essential government workers have at least this morning off. If the shutdown becomes extended, with mass firings of federal workers, it would be a major escalation in the annual spending battles that define your Nation’s Capital. The impact will reach FTZ operators and applicants if it lasts very long. That would give everyone time to head to the movies. . .

SHUTDOWN

Last evening the Senate voted on two different proposals to keep the government temporarily funded and open for business. Both failed, and all non-essential functions of the U.S. federal government shut down at midnight last night.
Shutdowns tend to be brief because eventually even ‘non-essential’ government functions become essential. The last shutdown during a Trump administration, in 2018, lasted 34 days.

But the end of a shutdown doesn’t mean that everything springs back to normal. Some of the damage endures, and that could be especially true this time around.

The President told reporters that the administration could use a funding lapse to make "irreversible cuts" to programs. If federal employees are terminated, and not simply furloughed, some programs may not have enough returning manpower to function at all.

Trade may end up being what brings the two sides together to pass a spending bill though.

Farmers are taking it in the soybeans. China has stopped buying them, and with the U.S. harvest coming in, farmers are scrambling for storage space while they look for alternative outlets. The President has said he would like to aid American farmers, but he needs Congress to do that. This could give Democrats leverage in budget discussions and force concessions that end the impasse.

AGOA expired last night. For 25 years, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) provided eligible Sub-Saharan African countries with duty-free access to U.S. markets for thousands of products.

AGOA's lapse could open the door for broader Chinese influence in Africa. The same goes for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Act and the Haiti Economic Lift Program (HELP) Act, which were also expired last night.

While AGOA and HOPE/HELP are far less controversial than the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) and even the General System of Preferences (GSP) that lapsed, there is little appetite for trade preference programs in Congress right now. However, if any of these programs were to be viewed as countering the spread of Chinese influence around the globe, they might help muster support for a spending vehicle to restart the programs and the government at the same time.

Sign Up For Electronic Refunds in ACE!

The Supreme Court has agreed to an accelerated schedule for deciding the fate of the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs. Both the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have ruled IEEPA does not grant the President unlimited authority to impose broad tariffs.

The Supreme Court appears to be the last hurdle between billions of dollars in refunds of IEEPA tariffs paid in 2025. That has importers thinking about how those refunds will be made.

Yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) updated the Automated Commercial Environment Secure Data Portal (ACE Portal) to support electronic refund transactions, and importers should sign up to enable this option.

The enhancement enables trade users to provide U.S. bank information in the ACE Portal, facilitating electronic refunds from CBP via Automated Clearing House (ACH) transactions. Traders would need to establish internal processes to allocate and trace the refunds back to their specific imports.

Not planning to take advantage of electronic refunds? For now, you can still participate in any refund frenzy the old-fashioned way, via paper checks. One for each entry. In this case, it is time to make sure the contact information on your Form 5106 is up to date. In the era of ACE Portal notifications, etc., companies may have lost track of the physical address registered with CBP. The latest version of the form is more complicated than it used to be, but can still be filed with paper at your local port, or electronically by a broker with 5106 capability.

There are still major questions surrounding whether there will be IEEPA refunds, and what process would be used to effect them. Even so, signing up to receive refunds electronically is a simple step importers can take now to make the process easier if it develops.

Questions about how to prepare to receive refunds in the event of a favorable Supreme Court ruling? Contact us at info@iscm.co.

Temporary Shutdown May Have Permanent FTZ Impact

After a 3-week hiatus on staff actions in September, new sites and subzones were once again receiving Department of Commerce approval before month’s end.

Slightly more than half of the expected staff actions were completed last month, based on the volumes processed in July and August. That means there was already a backlog of staff cases when the shutdown began, that will only grow each day that FTZ Board staff are held out of work.

The impact to FTZ applications could be longer lasting if the Administration follows through on threats to terminate federal employees, rather than just furlough them while the shutdown is in effect.

That seems unlikely if the shutdown is short – only five more Democrats in the Senate need to switch their votes for a restart – but if the shutdown persists, broad layoffs of federal employees could permanently damage the program.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) told federal agencies last week to examine whether to implement reduction-in-force plans in the event of a shutdown. Typically during shutdowns, the government temporarily furloughs staff or directs them to work without pay, rather than laying them off permanently. It's unclear whether any agencies will actually cut staff.

A group of unions representing federal workers sued the Trump administration over the OMB memo directing agencies to consider layoffs during the shutdown.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees argued the government doesn't have the legal right to carry out reductions-in-force because of a shutdown.

Perhaps the Courts will once again be called upon to safeguard international traders.

FTZs Watch IEEPA Lawsuit Head To Supreme Court

The legal battle over the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has now reached your Nation’s highest court. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the lead case which challenges the legality of the IEEPA tariffs imposed by President Trump.

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin in early November, which means a chance exists that a final ruling could come within 2025, though early 2026 is more likely.

President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs on a wide range of imported goods from every trading partner of the United States. The administration argues that these measures were necessary to protect national security.

Even though billions in fees might be refunded if the Administration loses in court, FTZs might be forgiven for being conflicted on which side to root for. This is because other options for recovering the lost duty revenue, such as expanding the Section 232 sector and derivative lists, could be just as expensive and far more difficult for importers to comply with.

Critics, however, claimed the move was a misuse of IEEPA, which was originally designed to freeze assets and restrict financial transactions—not to regulate trade through tariffs.

V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based distributor of fine wines and spirits, filed suit at the Court of International Trade (CIT) shortly after the tariffs were announced. The company argued that the President had exceeded his statutory authority under IEEPA. The CIT ruled unanimously in favor of V.O.S. Selections.

In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) also ruled in favor of V.O.S. Selections, declaring that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs. However, the CAFC also asked the CIT to reconsider if the decision would only apply to V.O.S. Selections, or if the import community as a whole would benefit from a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

The CAFC ruling, while not unanimous, emphasized that Congress had reserved tariff-setting powers for itself and that the president’s actions represented an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority. The ruling prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case was announced in early September, just days after President Trump urged the justices to fast-track the appeal. Legal observers noted the unusual speed with which the Court accepted the petition, suggesting the justices recognized the case’s significance for separation of powers and economic governance.

At the heart of the legal debate is the interpretation of IEEPA’s language; it does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Trump administration argues that tariffs fall within the scope of economic countermeasures, while opponents contend that such powers must be narrowly construed.

The outcome of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump will not only determine the fate of billions in tariffs but also shape the balance of power between Congress and the presidency for years to come.

A Giant WRO

With everything else going on this year, the FTZ’ine Staff bets you completely forgot about Withhold Release Orders (WRO).

But you better refresh your memory if you were planning to get someone a bicycle this holiday season.

Late last month CBP issued a blockbuster WRO targeting bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories manufactured by Giant Manufacturing Co. Ltd. of Taiwan. Effective immediately, CBP will detain all relevant imports at U.S. ports of entry, pending further review or proof of admissibility.

The Giant WRO marks the third such order issued in calendar year 2025, and the fourth in the government fiscal year that ended yesterday. CBP currently enforces over 50 WROs and continues to investigate allegations from various sources, including NGOs, media, and public reports.

Giant Group, a globally recognized bicycle manufacturer headquartered in Taiwan, responded swiftly to the WRO, but historically it has been difficult to earn release of goods that have been subject to a WRO.

The WRO applies exclusively to products manufactured in Taiwan and exported to the United States. Giant’s operations and sales in other markets remain unaffected.

Importers of detained shipments have limited options: they may re-export, destroy the goods, or petition CBP to prove that the merchandise was not produced with forced labor. Giant has indicated its intent to file such a petition, arguing that its recent reforms demonstrate a commitment to ethical labor practices.

The WRO has significant implications for U.S. retailers and consumers. Giant bicycles are widely distributed across the country, and retailers will be looking for alternative suppliers to avoid missed sales during the all-important holiday shopping season.

FTZ Staff Activity

FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-291-2025) in FTZ 52 on behalf of Dove Electronic Components, Inc., Brookhaven Town, NY on August 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-292-2025) in FTZ 72 on behalf of General Electric Company, Lafayette, IN on August 25, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-293-2025) in FTZ 94 on behalf of Unlimited Solutions Group, Inc., Laredo, TX on August 26, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-294-2025) in FTZ 32 on behalf of Patriot Engineering Services Corporation, Opa-Locka, FL on August 26, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-295-2025) in FTZ 244D on behalf of White Horse Logistics USA, LLC, Jurupa Valley, CA on August 25, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-296-2025) in FTZ 70AD on behalf of WGS Global Services, LC, Troy, MI on August 28, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-297-2025) in FTZ 244A on behalf of Skechers USA, Inc., Moreno Valley, CA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-298-2025) in FTZ 40 on behalf of Radiometer America, Inc., Middleburg Heights, OH on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-299-2025) in FTZ 2 on behalf of WF Whelan Company, New Orleans, LA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-300-2025) in FTZ 125J on behalf of Microscreen, LLC, South Bend, IN on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-301-2025) in FTZ 26 on behalf of Wangs Alliance Corporation dba WAC Lighting, Lithia Springs, GA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-302-2025) in FTZ 202 on behalf of Fisher Footwear, LLC, Redlands, CA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-303-2025) in FTZ 244 on behalf of Rep Fitness, LLC, Moreno Valley, CA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-304-2025) in FTZ 89 on behalf of Exel dba DHL Supply Chain, Las Vegas, NV on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-305-2025) in FTZ 296A on behalf of Cornell Pump Company, LLC, Vancouver, WA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-306-2025) in FTZ 22 on behalf of AFT Specialty Coatings, LLC, The Hills, IL on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-307-2025) in FTZ 41W on behalf of Eli Lilly and Company, Pleasant Prairie, WI on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-308-2025) in FTZ 84 on behalf of Premium Oilfield Technologies Management, LLC, Houston, TX on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-309-2025) in FTZ 32 on behalf of Meats by Linz, Inc., Miami, FL on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-310-2025) in FTZ 83 on behalf of Scosche Industries, Inc., Spruce Pine, AL on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-311-2025) in FTZ 79I on behalf of CSX Transportation, Tampa, FL on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-312-2025) in FTZ 241 on behalf of Specialized Freight Carriers, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-313-2025) in FTZ 281 on behalf of Chef’s Warehouse of Florida, LLC, Opa Locka, FL on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-314-2025) in FTZ 202 on behalf of EXELint International International Co., Redondo Beach, CA on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-315-2025) in FTZ 30 on behalf of Beauty Industry Group, Salt Lake City, UT on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-316-2025) in FTZ 12 on behalf of Avant Technology, Inc., Pharr, TX on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-317-2025) in FTZ 281L on behalf of Global Engine Maintenance, LLC, Doral, FL on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-318-2025) in FTZ 35O on behalf of Harverford Systems, Inc., Downington, PA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-319-2025) in FTZ 35 on behalf of SCL Warehousing, Sharon Hill, PA on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the Grantee's activation limit(S-320-2025) in FTZ 38 on behalf of Elite Logistix, LLC, Rock Hill, SC on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-321-2025) in FTZ 32H on behalf of World Class Solutions, LLC, Miami, FL on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-322-2025) in FTZ 214G on behalf of Corning, Inc., Wilmington, NC on September 18, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-323-2025) in FTZ 244 on behalf of YSN Imports LLC dba Flame King, Riverside, CA on September 23, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-324-2025) in FTZ 196 on behalf of Henry Schein, Inc., Fort Worth, TX on September 23, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-325-2025) in FTZ 22 on behalf of Amano Enzyme USA Co., Ltd., Elgin, IL on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the Grantee's activation limit (S-326-2025) in FTZ 38 on behalf of Coroplast Tape Corporaton, Rock Hill, SC on September 22, 2025
FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-327-2025) in FTZ 45M on behalf of Intel Foundry Corporation, Hillsboro/Aloha/Sherwood, OR on September 24, 2025

Foreign-Trade Zone Board Activity

- FTZ Corp of Southern Pennsylvania submitted an application requesting authority to expand the service area of Foreign-Trade Zone 147 to include Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. MORE
- The FTZ Board is inviting public comment on new evidence in support of the application for Production Authority of Phillips 66 Company for renewable fuels within Foreign-Trade Zone 3E in Rodeo, California. MORE
- Firmenich, Inc. submitted an application requesting authority to expand Site 3 of Foreign-Trade Zone 49H to include an additional .87 acres in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. MORE
- Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing submitted a notification of proposed production activity for pharmaceutical products within Foreign-Trade Zone 189H in Caledonia and Grand Rapids, Michigan. MORE
- Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing withdrew its notification of proposed production activity for pharmaceutical products within Foreign-Trade Zone 189H in Caledonia and Grand Rapids, Michigan. MORE
- Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. was denied approval to operate their Hope Hull, Alabama facilities as a subzone of Foreign-Trade Zone 222. MORE
- 3nStar, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity for point of sale terminals within Foreign-Trade Zone 32 in Doral, Florida. MORE
- Centro Automotriz Santa Rosa, Inc. received approval to operate their San Juan, Puerto Rico facilities as Foreign-Trade Zone 163O. 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.