As the (Customs and Trade) World Turns: August 2026

We are navigating an unpredictable and fast-changing trade landscape and what we are reporting today may change by tomorrow (or in the next hour). However, our team regularly issuing reports and alerts to help our clients and friends stay up to date. Sign up here for regular updates and receive this newsletter each month. 

This edition provides essential insights for sectors including international trade, national security, aluminum, steel, and copper industries, fashion and retail, automotive, life sciences, electronics, artificial intelligence, transportation, electric mobility, e-commerce, shipping and logistics, and compliance, as well as for in-house counsel, importers, and compliance professionals. 

In the August 2026 edition, we cover:

1. DHS Adds 43 Entities to the UFLPA Entity List: DHS added 43 companies to the UFLPA Entity List, the largest single expansion ever, covering sectors from agriculture to electronics, effective August 3.
2. Canada’s Forced-Labor Consultation: Canada is accepting comments through August 21 on Bill C-35, which would strengthen forced-labor import bans and empower customs to detain suspect goods.
3. Section 301 Forced Labor Tariffs Challenged in Court: Three lawsuits in the CIT challenge the new Section 301 forced labor tariffs (10-12.5% on 60 economies) as a pretextual global tariff regime.
4. Redi-Bag USA Settles Customs Fraud for $7.3 Million: Redi-Bag USA and its CEO will pay $7.3 million to settle allegations they evaded antidumping duties by transshipping Chinese-made bags through Hong Kong and falsifying origin markings.
5. BIS Connected Vehicle Rule Compliance Pathways: BIS issued revised and new General Authorizations under the Connected Vehicles Rule, adding narrow testing exceptions and an Approved Supplier Registry for pre-cleared imports.
6. Section 232 Polysilicon Import Restrictions: President Trump signed a proclamation imposing minimum import prices and a 15% tariff on polysilicon and its derivatives under Section 232, effective December 4, replacing the expired Section 201 solar safeguard tariff.

1. DHS Adds 43 Entities to the UFLPA Entity List

On July 31, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), on behalf of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), announced the addition of 43 companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. This is the first update to the Entity List since the President Trump took office in January 2025, and the single largest expansion since the UFLPA’s enactment. Effective August 3, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply a rebuttable presumption that goods produced, in whole or in part, by these entities were produced with forced labor and therefore prohibited from entering the United States. 

The 43 newly listed entities operate across high-priority sectors for enforcement, including aluminum, apparel, copper, cotton, and tomatoes and downstream products. Newly added companies also cover:

• Mining.

• Transportation infrastructure construction and building materials.

• Pharmaceuticals including conjugated estrogen products, traditional Chinese medicine extracts, antibiotics, and oral health preparations. 

• Agriculture and food products such as salmon, frozen foods (dumplings, steamed buns, wontons), tomato products, sugar beets, snack foods, nuts, dried fruits, and health drinks; metals and mining including aluminum, gold, copper, molybdenum, titanium, and lithium carbonate. 

• Textiles and apparel such as cotton, yarn, and menswear. 

• Energy and materials including polysilicon, coal, petroleum coke, and power transmission equipment. 

• Electronics such as aluminum electrolytic capacitors and lithium battery electrode materials. 

And the Fox Says…: Collectively, the additions signal heightened U.S. forced labor enforcement across supply chains in agriculture, mining, energy, pharmaceuticals, textiles, electronics, and infrastructure. These additions come just one week after US Trade Representative’s (USTR) Section 301 forced labor tariffs took effect on July 24. The announcement also emphasizes that the joint DHS and US Department of Justice (DOJ) Trade Fraud Task Force will prioritize forced labor enforcement. Companies should screen suppliers against the newly listed entities, map their upstream supply chains, and review forced labor due diligence programs to ensure they are proactively able to respond to increased enforcement. We also recommend that companies review public supply chain disclosures, including conflicts minerals reports, in light of these additions.

Contributors: Lucas A. Rock, Joy Marie Virga, and Angela M. Santos

2. Businesses With North American Supply Chains Should Monitor Canada’s Forced-Labor Consultation

Canada is seeking to strengthen its existing forced-labor import prohibitions through Bill C-35. This legislation would authorize the Minister of Foreign Affairs to set out a listing of goods for which there exist reasonable grounds to suspect they were produced wholly or in part by forced labor. Importers of listed goods could be required, at a customs officer’s request, to provide prescribed information; failure to do so could result in the goods being prohibited entry. Public consultation on effective enforcement mechanisms, in view of a USTR report that Canada has not adequately enforced its forced-labor import prohibition, is underway. Comments were due by August 21. 

Canada’s inclusion in the Section 301 report has resulted in the imposition of a 10% US tariff on goods imported from Canada, with certain exclusions.

Submissions

Businesses with Canadian supply-chain inputs have an opportunity to make submissions advocating a predictable, evidence-based, and commercially workable regime.

Key issues include:

• Clear and transparent criteria for listing suspected imports, based on publicly available evidence and objective standards.

• Risk-based compliance obligations that reflect sector-specific supply-chain realities, rather than uniform documentation requirements for all industries.

• Meaningful notice and review mechanisms before goods are listed or enforcement measures are taken.

• Alignment with US, European Union (EU), and allied forced-labor frameworks to reduce duplicative compliance burdens and avoid inconsistent standards.

• Recognition of documented due diligence, including safe-harbor protections for companies with robust supplier screening, audit, and traceability programs.

Mining and Critical Minerals Supply Chains

For mining, metals, battery materials, and critical minerals businesses, the principal risk extends beyond direct imports. Modern mining supply chains often involve global procurement of equipment, components, reagents, refined materials, processing services, and battery inputs.

A listing-based regime could create substantial documentation burdens, shipment delays, and potential detention of goods where supply-chain traceability cannot be established. Bill C-35 would also empower customs to detain goods — potentially for up to 90 days or longer if prescribed — while assessing whether they were produced wholly or in part by forced labor.

And the Fox Says…: Businesses with Canadian supply-chain elements — particularly critical minerals, battery materials, refining, processing, and international procurement — should use this consultation to help shape a framework that combats forced labor while preserving efficient, predictable, and commercially workable trade.

Contributors: Riyaz Dattu

3. Section 301 Forced Labor Tariffs Meet Familiar Foes in Court

On July 24, the day Section 122 global tariffs (implemented by the Administration following the US Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] tariffs) expired, the replacement Section 301 Forced Labor tariffs took effect. These tariffs apply to 60 economies, covering most US import volume, for failing to implement or enforce forced labor bans on their imports: 10% for economies with existing ban-type measures and 12.5% for all others, with certain nuances, caps, and exemptions.

As expected, several parties swiftly challenged the Section 301 tariffs before the US Court of International Trade (CIT). Specifically, as of publication, three suits have been filed by various parties, including large corporations, small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and 25 states. While each of the cases present different arguments as to why this attempt at enforcing a global tariff regime are unlawful, they share a common theme: they contend that the president is using forced labor as a pretext to impose tariffs on a global scale, following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs struck down in February, and the expiration of the Section 122 tariffs, which the CIT found unlawful in one case but limited relief to certain plaintiffs in that litigation. (The Section 122 tariffs are on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The three Section 301 cases have been assigned to a three-judge panel with briefing schedule to begin on August 24, and oral argument schedule for September 30.

And the Fox Says…: Importers should keep an eye on any guidance from the USTR or CBP, as well as review which imports are covered under the new Section 301 tariffs. Importers are not new to Section 301 litigation — we all remember the China Section 301 tariff cases.I Importer-specific litigation may be necessary to protect potential refunds. We are also closely monitoring developments in the Section 301 Structural Excess Capacity and Production investigation, which may also result in new tariffs. Administration representatives have made statements regarding tariffs reverting to IEEPA levels.

For importers looking to assess how these latest announced tariffs may affect their entries, ArentFox Schiff is available to discuss these issues.

Contributors: Tyler J. Kimberly, Chelsea Burkhart, Nancy A. Noonan, and Angela M. Santos

4. Redi-Bag USA and CEO Settle Customs Fraud Allegations for $7.3 Million

The DOJ continues to deploy the False Claims Act (FCA) as a frontline trade enforcement tool. On July 15, the DOJ announced that New York Packaging II LLC, doing business as Redi-Bag USA, and its CEO, Jeffrey Rabiea, agreed to pay $7.3 million to resolve allegations that they evaded antidumping duties on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) manufactured in China by misrepresenting Hong Kong as the country of origin on customs entry forms.

The Alleged Scheme: Country-of-Origin Fraud and Transshipment

The government alleged that from 2011 through 2021, Redi-Bag USA and Rabiea knowingly imported Chinese-manufactured PRCBs that were transshipped through Hong Kong and falsely declared Hong Kong as the country of origin to avoid antidumping duties of up to 77.57% imposed under Antidumping Duty Order No. A-570-886. To conceal the true origin of the goods, the defendants allegedly directed employees to cover up “Made in China” markings on bags, instructed the manufacturer to remove such markings altogether, and canceled orders upon learning they would be inspected by CBP. The DOJ further alleged that the defendants hid information from their own customs broker and from CBP.

The Whistleblower

The settlement resolves a qui tam suit filed by John Maierhoffer, a former contracted sales representative for Redi-Bag USA, in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Case No. 21-20170 (D.N.J.)). As part of the resolution, Maierhoffer will receive approximately $1.33 million of the settlement proceeds. The case is another example of insider whistleblowers with direct knowledge of an importer’s operations driving customs fraud enforcement.

And the Fox Says…: The Redi-Bag settlement reinforces several trends we have been tracking. The DOJ and the interagency Trade Fraud Task Force, now bolstered by the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud and the National Fraud Enforcement Division, continue to treat duty evasion as a top enforcement priority, with country-of-origin fraud involving transshipment through third countries drawing particular scrutiny (see our mid-year FCA update here). The government continues to focus on individual accountability to a greater extent than in recent years; naming the CEO personally in the lawsuit signals that the DOJ will look past the corporate entity to reach decision-makers who direct or condone evasion schemes. Whistleblowers embedded in the supply chain, even contractors, remain one of the government’s most effective detection mechanisms. Importers should treat this settlement as a prompt to pressure-test their compliance programs, including country-of-origin verification procedures, customs broker communications, and training that extends to all employees and third-party representatives who touch import documentation.

(The DOJ’s press release noted that “[t]he claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.)

Contributors: Collin M. Douglas, Nadia Patel, Jackson David Toof, and Mario A. Torrico

5. BIS Unveils New Pathways for Connected Vehicle Rule Compliance

On June 18, the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) revised one General Authorization and issued one new General Authorization under “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles” Rule (the Connected Vehicles Rule). The Connected Vehicles Rule prohibits imports and sales of connected vehicles and related hardware with a Chinese or Russian nexus. We cover the Rule in depth in our previous alert: Taking Stock – Summary of BIS Actions From Fall 2024, and Peek at What Is Next Under the Trump Administration. 

Amended GA1: Refined Limited-Use Exceptions

The amended General Authorization No. 1 (GA1) distinguishes between items outright prohibited under §§ 791.302–303 and those subject to a declaration of conformity under § 791.305. Manufacturers may import completed connected vehicles incorporating covered software or vehicle connectivity system (VCS) hardware without specific authorization or the submission of declarations of conformity in four narrow circumstances: (1) public-road testing (capped at 30 calendar days per 12-month period, testing purposes only, no personal use); (2) non-public road display, testing, or research for otherwise prohibited covered software or VCS software; (3) display, testing, or research of declaration-of-conformity items regardless of road use; and (4) temporary imports for repair, alteration, or sporting competition with export within one year of import. Recordkeeping is mandatory for each exception.

New GA3: The Approved Supplier Registry

GA3 establishes a formal Approved Supplier Registry administered by OICTS. Suppliers may apply to have themselves and specific products pre-cleared, and once both supplier and product are listed together, importers and manufacturers may proceed without individual BIS authorization. However, GA3 comes with guardrails: BIS may impose letters of assurance, mitigation agreements, or conditions before adding suppliers and products, and may remove suppliers for non-compliance or national security concerns at its discretion.

As the Fox Says…: These authorizations offer welcome compliance pathways, but they are narrow and demand active monitoring. We discuss these requirements in further details in our previous alert: BIS Updates Connected Vehicle Rule Authorizations: Amended Limited Use Authorization and New Approved Supplier Registry.Companies in the connected vehicle supply chain should assess whether GA1 or GA3 applies to their operations and build the recordkeeping infrastructure now.

Contributors: Maya S. Cohen and Sylvia G. Costelloe

6. From Tariffs to Price Floors: Polysilicon Section 232 Action Introduces New Remedy Tool

On August 6, President Trump signed a proclamation imposing import restrictions on polysilicon and its derivative products under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Effective December 4, the action establishes two remedies: (1) a minimum import price (MIP) program and (2) a 15% ad valorem tariff on polysilicon derivatives (ingots, wafers, solar cells, and modules). The action replaces the narrower Section 201 safeguard tariff on solar cells and modules that expired in February 2026, while extending protections upstream to raw polysilicon, ingots, and wafers.

The MIP program is a novel remedial tool in the Section 232 context. Prior Section 232 actions on steel, aluminum, copper, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals relied on ad valorem tariffs or quotas. Here, the MIPs set mandatory floor prices ($21/kg for polysilicon, $100/kg for ingots and wafers, $0.22/W for cells, and $0.38/W for modules) and impose a specific tariff equal to the shortfall if the entered value falls below the floor.

The 15% ad valorem tariff (10% for the United Kingdom; capped at 15% combined for EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) stacks with any other applicable duties. The proclamation also establishes an onshoring incentive program offering tariff offsets for companies committing to build US production facilities by January 20, 2029.

And the Fox Says…: Importersshould consider how this new Section 232 action will impact its supply chain and consider implementing any tariff mitigation measures before the December 4, implementation date. Additionally, importers should note that materially inaccurate MIP certifications carry a severe penalty: a permanent import ban on the importer and its affiliates. The Commerce Department has been directed to monitor for stockpiling during the interim period, which could result in import restrictions before December 4. The polysilicon proclamation’s introduction of minimum import price mechanism deserves particular attention. The MIP represents a departure from the tariff-and-quota playbook that defined every prior Section 232 action. Whether the MIP model migrates to future Section 232 actions is a question importers and domestic manufacturers alike should be watching closely, as there are several Section 232 investigations pending action. 

Contributors: Fernando Ramirez, Mario A. Torrico, and Antonio J. Rivera