1.

Trump Administration’s Imposition of Tariffs on Steel, Aluminum and Derivative Products

The Trump administration’s Section 232 tariffs apply not only to steel and aluminum products themselves but also to derivative products made from these materials. Accordingly, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (the “CBP”) has issued a series of guidelines^[2] regarding the tariff declaration for derivative products. However, the release of specific CBP guidelines for calculating steel and aluminum content has been delayed to date.

In the meantime, President Trump has ordered the DOC to set up an inclusion process for adding new products that are subject to Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and their derivatives. Accordingly, the DOC has announced additional items subject to the Section 232 tariffs, broadened the scope of tariff coverage and instituted a triannual procedure for adding new items to the list of products subject to Section 232 tariffs.
 

2.

Lawsuit Filed Regarding Imposition of Tariffs on Derivatives (Express Fasteners, Ltd. v. United States)

On January 27, 2026, local time, Express Fasteners, Ltd., located in Illinois, filed a lawsuit with the Court of International Trade (the “CIT”), alleging that the CBP illegally imposed Section 232 steel tariffs on its imported products.^[3]

The key issue in this lawsuit is the standards used by the CBP for imposing Section 232 tariffs on steel derivatives. Following President Trump’s announcement of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, the CBP recommended, through its tariff declaration guidelines for the affected derivative products, that these tariffs should be imposed solely on the basis of the steel and aluminum content of the goods.

However, according to the plaintiff’s argument, the CBP has recently been imposing Section 232 tariffs by subtracting the non-metallic content from the entire value of the product, which includes processing costs, overhead costs and profit. This allegation is based on an unofficial memo from the Customs Center of Excellence and Expertise for Base Metals, a CBP unit, issued late last year.

The plaintiff argued that the CBP’s change in tariff assessment methodology, based on an unofficial memo, violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it lacked proper notice and comment procedures and contradicted the existing guidance. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court invalidate the CBP’s new tariff valuation method and have the CBP recalculate tariffs based solely on the value of the steel content and refund all excessively collected tariffs.
 

3.

US Industry Groups’ Submission of Letter Urging Relief from Section 232 Tariffs Burden

On February 10, 2026, over 20 industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Automotive Body Parts Association, sent a letter to the DOC’s Bureau of Industry and Security requesting a reassessment of the Section 232 tariff investigation and its implementation methods.

In the letter, they argued that the Trump administration’s broad application of Section 232 tariffs causes significant difficulties for US manufacturing and business activities. They also pointed out that the lack of clear guidelines for applying Section 232 to derivative products, coupled with the absence of specific criteria for calculating steel and aluminum content, perpetuates uncertainty. They explained that such unclear regulations impose an administrative burden on businesses.

In addition, they raised concerns regarding the rushed procedures for adding items under Section 232 tariffs, the abolition of the exclusion process and the lack of public-private consultations related to Section 232. They recommended ensuring procedural transparency, restoring the exclusion process and reducing the administrative burden on businesses.