Court Orders Trump to
Declare List of Countries using Forced Labour for Section 301 Tariff
[ABS News Service/06.11.2026]
The
Court of International Trade three judge panel considering a challenge to
President Trump’s decision to impose Section 301 tariffs on countries for
failure to keep products made with forced labor out of their markets is asking
the plaintiffs involved to provide lists of the countries whose products they import.
The
judges ordered plaintiffs in the case to “file declarations notifying the Court
of any relevant countries and/or economies from which Plaintiffs in all cases
import” by November 10.
The
judges did not say how this information might factor into their decision. But
during oral arguments September 30, both judges and the attorney representing
the group of small businesses raised the possibility of providing tariff relief
just for the some two dozen countries the firms do business with.
The
case, In Re Section 301 Forced Labor, is a consolidation of a handful of
separate complaints brought by US small businesses and state governments
following the decision to impose Section 301 tariffs over forced labor
allegations.
Arguments
The
Administration argues that the tariffs are necessary to comply with US law
banning imports made with forced labor. But the plaintiffs say Section 301
requires country-specific findings that the US Trade Representative’s Office
did not provide. They allege the Administration’s decision to impose the
tariffs so broadly, including on countries that actually have strong records on
keeping products made with forced labor out of their supply chain had less to
do with forced labor, than it did attempting toreinstate
the global reciprocal tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court.
Those
tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, had to
be repealed and the US government was required to issue refunds of tariffs
paid, resulting in the loss of a revenue stream the White House had been
counting on.
The Administration is seeking to have
the case dismissed.