04/14/2026
AGTA Update on Tariffs after Supreme Court Decision. May be of interest.
This update is provided by the AGTA to inform members of recent developments following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In response to the ruling, the Administration has shifted to alternative statutory authorities to support the imposition of tariffs beyond the previously applied country-specific IEEPA measures.
For broader context, on April 2 – the one-year anniversary of the so-called “Liberation Day” – U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Greer highlighted the Administration’s view that tariffs have been effective in protecting American workers and encouraging global trade negotiations. He stated that tariffs and related trade agreements are delivering tangible results for the U.S. economy.
AGTA maintains its longstanding position that its members import and export gemstones that are not geologically available in the United States and, therefore, should be restored to their historic duty-free status.
As previously reported, on February 20, the President issued a proclamation imposing a temporary 10% global import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. While this authority is intended to address balance-of-payments concerns, its application is currently being challenged in court. The surcharge is scheduled to expire on July 24 unless extended by Congress. Although there have been indications that the Administration may seek to increase the rate to the statutory maximum of 15%, no such action has been taken to date.
Importantly, the proclamation includes certain exceptions outlined in Annex II, including for natural resources that cannot be grown, mined, or produced in the United States. As this exemption should clearly apply to loose colored gemstones, AGTA has formally petitioned the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to ensure appropriate coverage. We are also working with congressional allies to strengthen this effort.
On Friday, April 10, a hearing was held before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade on a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s use of Section 122. Among the arguments advanced by a group of states and small businesses was that no monetary balance-of-payments deficit exists as distinct from actual trade deficits. They also claimed the tariffs imposed were unconstitutional use congressional taxing power. The plaintiffs asked the court to block the application of this statute and order refunds of tariffs paid. AGTA is closely monitoring this litigation, including any future appeals.
In March, USTR initiated two separate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This authority permits a broad review of foreign practices that may be discriminatory or inconsistent with U.S. trade rights and allows for potential remedies, including tariffs or other trade restrictions.
The first investigation focuses on “structural excess capacity” among 16 trading partners, including Thailand, India, Vietnam, and Japan. A public comment period and hearings are scheduled for May.
The second investigation involves 60 major U.S. trading partners and examines whether they have imposed and effectively enforced prohibitions on forced labor. Countries under review include Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, and members of the European Union. Public comment and hearings are also forthcoming.
Both investigations are proceeding on an accelerated timeline and are expected to conclude before the expiration of the Section 122 surcharge in July. Should findings indicate unfair or discriminatory practices, the Administration may rely on these results as a basis for imposing additional tariffs.
Additional statutory authorities available to the Administration include:
Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, which addresses injury or threatened injury to U.S. industries as determined by the U.S. International Trade Commission (safeguard actions);
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a rarely used provision addressing discrimination against U.S. commerce that does not require a formal agency investigation; and
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows for trade actions based on national security concerns and is currently in use for certain products and countries.
Collectively, these authorities present an ongoing risk to AGTA members – not only due to the uncertainty they create, but also because of their potential impact on supply chains and overall business viability. AGTA continues to work closely with trade consultants in Washington, D.C., as well as congressional and administrative stakeholders, to advocate effectively on behalf of its members.
Finally, with respect to refunds of previously imposed IEEPA tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has informed the U.S. Court of International Trade that it is in the final stages of developing an online claims portal. The portal is expected to launch later this month and will reportedly cover both liquidated (finalized) and unliquidated entries, including applicable interest. Members are strongly encouraged to coordinate with their customs brokers to ensure timely registration and filing once the system becomes available.
Bruce Bridges, President, American Gem Trade Association
John W. Ford Sr., CEO, American Gem Trade Association
