On September 30, 2026 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade heard challenges to the Trump administration’s Section 301 forced-labor tariffs, imposed in July 2026 at rates of 10 percent to 12.5 percent on nearly all U.S. imports. Plaintiffs asked the court to throw the tariffs out. The government defended them as a lawful response to trading partners that, it says, are not doing enough to stop forced labor. The panel gave no ruling on September 30 and is expected to issue a written decision in the coming weeks. Procurement teams should not drop the duty from landed-cost models, but they should tag open POs and 2027 contracts with a legal-contingency flag and a recovery path if the court vacates the levies.
The U.S. Court of International Trade spent September 30, 2026 testing whether the administration’s newest global tariff — a 10 to 12.5 percent forced-labor duty on nearly all imports — can survive the same court that has already narrowed presidential tariff power. Importers, customs brokers, and procurement leads with 2026–2027 supply contracts are the operators on the hook while the panel writes its ruling.
This brief is news context for operators, not legal, tax, customs, or investment advice. Confirm dates and filing mechanics with counsel or your broker before changing a procedure.
- What changed? Nothing in the tariff schedule on September 30. What changed is the legal posture: a three-judge CIT panel heard merits arguments and plaintiffs asked for the tariffs to be thrown out entirely.
- When? Hearing on September 30, 2026, in In re: Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, No. 26-cv-3555. A written ruling is expected in the coming weeks. No date has been set.
- Who is affected? U.S. importers of goods from the covered economies, their customs brokers, and procurement teams whose landed cost includes the July 2026 duty.
- What to do this week? Confirm the Chapter 99 heading on open entries, separate the forced-labor duty from older Section 301 China lists in the cost model, and write a contract clause for what happens if the court vacates or refunds the tariff.
What happened at the trade court on September 30?
A panel of three judges, appointed by Presidents Trump, Obama, and Biden, heard arguments in Manhattan on lawsuits challenging the forced-labor tariffs. Plaintiffs argue the duties are an attempt to revive tariff power the Supreme Court struck down in February 2026. After that decision, the administration imposed a temporary 10 percent global tariff under a different statute. When that temporary measure expired, it invoked another authority in July 2026 to impose the forced-labor tariffs now before the court. Those rates run from 10 percent to 12.5 percent and apply to nearly all U.S. imports, on the claim that trading partners are not doing enough to stop forced labor.
Justice Department lawyers told the panel the government did not need to show “with metaphysical certainty” that forced labor was a burden on U.S. commerce before imposing the duties. Judges pressed on whether U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer followed the framework Congress set under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and whether the record was detailed enough to cover dozens of economies. Bloomberg reported that the policy reaches goods from 60 economies representing 99.4 percent of U.S. imports. The panel did not rule from the bench. Reuters reported that a written decision is expected in the coming weeks. The case is In re: Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, 26-cv-3555 (U.S. Court of International Trade).
How is this duty different from older Section 301 China tariffs?
Procurement systems often collapse every “301” line into one code. That is a mistake here. The older China Section 301 lists are product-specific, tied to the 2018 investigation, and still sit on top of many HTS lines. The July 2026 forced-labor tariffs are a separate action, aimed at trading partners’ labor enforcement rather than at a China-only product list, and they use their own rates of 10 to 12.5 percent. A shipment can carry both. Landed-cost files should show them on separate rows so a court decision on one does not get applied, by spreadsheet habit, to the other.
The hearing also does not pause collection. Customs continues to assess the duty until a court orders otherwise. Entries already liquidated, entries in the protest window, and entries still unliquidated will not all be treated the same way if the tariffs are later vacated. That is a broker question, and it should be asked now, not after the opinion lands.
Why does the hearing matter if there is no ruling yet?
Because sourcing decisions for the first half of 2027 are being made this quarter. A buyer who treats a 10 to 12.5 percent duty as permanent will re-source or re-price. A buyer who treats it as sure to fall will underwrite a cost that may still be due on the next entry. The honest position after September 30 is that the legal theory is under active attack, the government defended it, and the court has not picked a winner. The Supreme Court’s February 2026 limit on an earlier tariff program is the reason plaintiffs think they can win. It is not, by itself, a forecast of this panel’s result.
What should procurement teams do this week?
Pull the last 90 days of entries and tag any line that paid the July forced-labor duty. Ask the broker for the Chapter 99 heading used and for a list of entries still inside the protest window. In the cost model, keep the duty as a live line and add a contingency note: “subject to CIT 26-cv-3555; do not remove until a final order.”
On open purchase orders and 2027 framework agreements, check who bears a tariff increase or decrease. Many templates say the buyer bears “new” duties and say nothing about a duty that is later invalidated. Add a short clause covering refunds, protests, and who files them. If a supplier quoted DDP, confirm in writing that the forced-labor duty is inside the price and that a court-ordered refund comes back to the buyer, not only to the supplier’s broker. Do not instruct a broker to stop depositing the duty.
What should operators watch next?
The written CIT opinion, which the panel is expected to issue in the coming weeks, with no public date. Any administrative stay, or a government request to supplement the record, which challengers opposed at the hearing. And any Customs message on how liquidation or protests will be handled if the court vacates the tariffs in whole or in part. A partial win — some countries in, some out — would be harder to operationalize than a clean vacatur, and it is a result the hearing left open.
Frequently asked questions
Did the court strike down the forced-labor tariffs on September 30?
No. The Court of International Trade heard arguments. Plaintiffs asked for the tariffs to be thrown out. A written ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
What is the rate?
Reuters reported the July 2026 forced-labor tariffs range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent and apply to nearly all U.S. imports. Bloomberg described coverage of 60 economies representing 99.4 percent of U.S. imports.
What is the case number?
In re: Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, 26-cv-3555, U.S. Court of International Trade.
Should we stop paying the duty?
No. Collection continues until a court or Customs says otherwise. Stopping deposit without an instruction is a compliance error, not a hedge.
Does this replace the China Section 301 lists?
No. It is a separate July 2026 action. Older China Section 301 duties can still apply on the same entry.
Son Güncelleme / Last Updated: October 2, 2026.
Related reading: Europe’s low-value parcel fees · US-China trade truce extension. Department hub: Procurement.
Discover more from Kurums | Business Intelligence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.