1,400+ Companies Sue Over Trump Tariffs: Will Your Imports Be Next?
Imagine waking up to find your import costs skyrocketed overnight—again. For U.S. business owners in manufacturing, retail, e-commerce, and logistics who rely on global supply chains, the surge in protective appeals against IEEPA tariffs at the U.S. Court of International Trade isn't just courtroom drama. It's a direct hit to your bottom line, forcing importers to pay up now while refunds hang in limbo. Over 1,400 cases signal massive uncertainty, and if you're bringing in goods from high-tariff zones, staying ahead means understanding the stakes.
IEEPA Appeals Explode—But No Relief in Sight
As of mid-January 2026, more than 1,400 protective appeals have flooded the CIT, all challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Importers are demanding refunds, arguing the tariffs overstep presidential authority .
The CIT has repeatedly denied preliminary injunctions, like in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. US Customs and Border Protection, ruling no "irreparable harm" since the government promises reliquidation if tariffs fall . Proceedings are stayed pending a Supreme Court decision, leaving businesses paying duties on entries now.
What's fascinating here is the scale: this isn't fringe litigation—it's a tidal wave from everyday importers protecting billions in goods. The CIT's January 14 order even broadens refund assurances to future plaintiffs, hinting at systemic change if SCOTUS sides with challengers .
DOJ's $54M Hammer on Transshipment Fraud
In a blockbuster settlement, the DOJ nailed Ceratizit USA LLC for $54.4 million under the False Claims Act over four years of transshipping Chinese tungsten carbide through Taiwan to dodge Section 301 duties—plus nine years of misclassification and marking failures .
Whistleblower Mark Stover pockets nearly $10 million, spotlighting how insiders fuel enforcement via the new Trade Fraud Task Force .
"This settlement underscores the DOJ’s heightened focus on customs fraud, and transshipment in particular, and demonstrates just how costly lack of oversight can be."
The real intrigue? It exposes how even established players get caught, urging all importers to audit supply chains proactively—past imports remain vulnerable under FCA's long statute of limitations.
Tariffs March On Via Sections 232 and 301
While IEEPA battles rage, the administration pivots to familiar tools: Section 232 duties now hit advanced chips at 25% (with domestic exemptions), and Section 301 ramps up on Chinese semiconductors, batteries, graphite, and magnets .
Furniture tariffs are delayed to 2027, but aluminum/steel expansions and auto parts inclusions loom large .
This multi-front strategy reveals a resilient tariff playbook—SCOTUS won't derail it entirely. Businesses in autos, electronics, and critical minerals face stacked duties, demanding agile compliance to minimize exposure .
Venezuela Sanctions: Change on the Horizon?
Post-Maduro, talk of oil sector openings swirls, but Treasury's OFAC keeps all pre-January blocks intact: PDVSA, officials, vessels, debt, and sector caps . A DOE fact sheet hints at selective rollbacks for crude transport .
No wholesale lift yet—expect general licenses first .
The tension is palpable: promises of Western access clash with caution, making Venezuela high-risk. Companies eyeing Latin opportunities must double down on due diligence amid 50% rule pitfalls .
As these fronts collide—appeals mounting, fraud crackdowns intensifying, and tariffs evolving—U.S. importers face a high-wire act in 2026. Will the Supreme Court rewrite the rules, or is adaptation the only sure bet? Ponder your exposure and reach out to our team at The Evans International Law Firms for a no-obligation compliance review on IEEPA tariffs and beyond—we're here to help navigate the chaos.