An update on Anti-Forced Labor guidance issued by US Customs in the context of Withhold Release Orders (WROs).

Click here to continue reading the full version of this alert.

On June 20, 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) deployed its new Forced Labor Allegations Portal, which allows users to submit allegations of forced labor. The new portal replaces CBP’s Trade Violations Reporting (“TVR”) system for submitting forced labor allegations, and complaints can be submitted anonymously by trade users. Users are also able to upload documentation to support their submissions. According to CBP, the new portal is intended to “streamline data transfer, coordination, and review between CBP’s Forced Labor Division (FLD), Office of Field Operations (OFO), and Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE)” on matters related to forced labor prevention enforcement.

Additionally, CBP has provided several quick reference guides (“QRGs”) on how to use the portal and will be hosting three public webinars on how to access and use the Forced Labor Allegations Portal.

Reach out to David Stepp, Simeon Yerokun, or Pierfilippo Natta if you have any questions or would like to discuss this or forced labor matters generally.

To date the Trump Administration has issued multiple proclamations imposing varying rates of import duties on steel and aluminum and certain derivatives, including construction materials. These measures have added volatility and financial pressures to the construction sector both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, on June 3, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, doubling tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%, effective June 4, 2025. This action aims to counteract the continued influx of lower-priced, excess steel and aluminum imports that, according to the administration, threaten U.S. national security by undermining domestic production capacity. The proclamation notes that while prior tariffs provided some price support, they were insufficient to achieve the necessary capacity utilization rates for sustained industry health and defense readiness. The United Kingdom remains temporarily exempt at the 25% rate until July 9, per the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal.

Click here to continue reading the full version of this alert.

We are proud that our International Trade Practice is again ranked in Chambers USA, with three national practice area rankings and five ranked lawyers for 2025!

*Indicates first or second tier ranking

A hearty congratulations to all for these notable achievements!

For more information on Crowell’s overall rankings across practices, please take a look at the firm-wide announcement.

Continuing to focus on the Trump Administration tariffs, in this session, Crowell hosts Nicole Simonian and Dj Wolff, Co-Chairs of the International Trade Group, talk with Daniel Wolff, Crowell’s Litigation and Trial partner, as they review and consider the impact of the Court of International Trade’s recent decision on the tariffs imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Global Trade Talks is a podcast that shares brief perspectives on key global issues on international trade, current events, business, law, and public policy as they impact our lives.

Listen: Crowell.com | PodBean | SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts

The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the District Court for the District of Columbia (“DDC”) both issued decisions enjoining the Trump IEEPA tariffs.  In both venues, the government appealed the courts’ decisions, and both orders are currently stayed. The DDC stayed its own preliminary injunction pending appeal; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the CIT order which will remain in effect until the court rules on the government’s motion to stay pending appeal. Briefing on that motion will be complete on June 9, 2025, after which the Federal Circuit is likely to rule quickly on whether the CIT’s injunction will remain paused or take effect.  In the short term, this means that importers must still pay tariffs on their imports; in the long term, importers are advised to keep records of their imports and duties paid in the event that courts rule that the tariffs are unlawful and order that refunds be issued. 

CIT

In the CIT, the 3-judge panel issued a decision ruling that the president’s IEEPA tariffs are unlawful and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and a permanent injunction on the government’s ability to collect tariffs pursuant to IEEPA.  V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, Case No. 25-00066 (CIT, May 28, 2025); Oregon et al. v. Trump Case No. 25-00077 (CIT, May 28, 2025) (declaring IEEPA tariffs invalid and unlawful and granting permanent injunction).  V.O.S. and Oregon were consolidated on appeal by the Federal Circuit under V.O.S., Case No. 25-1812.

As noted, that decision is administratively stayed but a more substantive decision from the Federal Circuit on the government’s motion to stay pending appeal is expected as early as the week of June 9.

DDC

The DDC held that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, stating that the IEEPA statute does not provide authority to set tariffs at all. The DDC granted a preliminary injunction (i.e., not final judgment) which, unlike the CIT’s injunction, only applies to the plaintiffs in that case, and thus does not prevent the government from continuing to collect the tariffs from other importers.  Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-1248 (D.D.C. May 29, 2025).

The government appealed the DDC decision to the DC Circuit. On June 3, the DDC stayed its preliminary injunction pending appeal. On June 5, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite briefing on the appeal over the summer months and requested argument to be scheduled by September. 

Other Cases to Watch on Appeal

Ninth Circuit

The District Court of the Northern District of California State in California v. Trump considered the State of California and Governor Newsom’s identical challenge to the President’s authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. On June 2, 2025, the N.D. Cal. dismissed the action due to lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the government that the case should have been filed at the CIT. California promptly appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. California v. Trump, No. 25-3493.

In similar challenges filed in federal district courts in the Northern District Court of Florida (Emily Ley Paper, Inc. v. Trump) and Montana (Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security), the courts agreed that the cases should have been filed at the CIT. Unlike the N.D. Cal, however, the Florida and Montana federal courts transferred the cases to the CIT. In Webber, the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s transfer of the case to the CIT, arguing that the CIT does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the IEEPA and Section 232 issues raised by plaintiffs. In Emily, plaintiffs sought a stay of the N.D. Fl. order to transfer the case to the CIT to have the transfer reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit, a motion which the district court denied on May 21, 2025.  Once transferred to the CIT, the government filed a motion to stay proceedings of Emily Ley on June 4, 2025, pending the final decision in V.O.S. Plaintiff’s response is due June 25, 2025. 

Implications

The legality of the President’s use of IEEPA to support the imposition of tariffs and the jurisdictional question that goes with it are both appealing issues for Supreme Court review.  With a motion to expedite the appeal at the DC Circuit, a potential circuit split, numerous amicus briefs from high-profile legal practitioners, and urgent issues concerning the global economy, one or both cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the outcome of the government’s motion to the Federal Circuit to stay the CIT’s injunction will weigh heavily on whether importers will need to continue paying the tariffs while the cases are decided on the merits.

In November 2024, the UK Government introduced regulations which granted its financial sanctions regulator – the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) – greater intelligence gathering and enforcement powers. Our previous blog post on these amendments can be found here.

The changes included the extension of mandatory financial sanctions reporting obligations (“UK Reporting Regime”) to cover Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”), high-value dealers, art market participants and letting agencies (being industries identified as representing a higher risk for financial sanctions evasion). The changes are intended to encourage better sanctions compliance and assist OFSI in identifying potential circumvention gaps and financial sanctions breaches.

The new requirements came into force on 14 May 2025. We provide below an overview of the UK Reporting Regime and recommendations for how IPs (and those now affected by the regulations) can ensure compliance with the Regime, including adequate monitoring and prevention of potential UK sanctions breaches, and reporting requirements.

To whom do the new reporting requirements apply?

The following now fall within the definition of “Relevant Firm” and are subject to the new UK Reporting Regime:

  • Insolvency Practitioner: those acting as IPs within the meaning of s388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA 1986”) (or article 3 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (“IO Northern Ireland 1989”)) and their firms.
  • High value dealer: A firm or sole trader which trades or deals in goods (including an auctioneer) and makes / receives cash payment(s) (not bank transfer or digital payments) of at least €10,000 in total, whether the transaction is executed in a single operation or in several linked operations.
  • Art Market Participant: A firm or sole practitioner who is registered or required to register with HMRC as an art market participant.[1] In the context of financial sanctions reporting, this captures firms or individuals who in the course of carrying out their business:
    • trade in, or act as an intermediary in, the buying or selling of works of art, where the transaction value (or the value of a series of linked transactions) is €10,000 or more; or
    • store works of art where the value of the art so stored for a person amounts to €10,000 or more 
  • Letting Agent: A firm or sole practitioner who carries out, or whose employees carry out, letting agency work (defined as things done in response to instructions received from a prospective landlord or tenant for a month or more and done in relation to a prospective landlord or otherwise in the course of concluding an agreement for letting land for a month or more).

Industries that were already classified as Relevant Firms, and therefore subject to the UK Reporting Regime, include regulated financial institutions, currency exchanges, auditors, providers of accountancy, legal, tax and trust services, employment agencies, casino operators, precious metal sellers, cryptoasset exchange providers, and custodian wallet providers.

What information needs to be reported to OFSI?

Relevant Firms are subject to the following key requirements:

1. A report must be made to OFSI as soon as practicable if the firm knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a person:

    a. is either:

      • i. a “designated person” (meaning subject to any UK asset freezing sanctions either by direct designation of the OFSI Consolidated List or by virtue of ownership or control); or
      • ii. a “prohibited person” (this is a specific term in the context of the UK’s Russia sanctions regime and captures the Russian Central Bank, National Wealth Fund, Ministry of Finance, or a person owned or controlled directly or indirectly by, or acting on behalf of or at the direction of, these entities);[2] or

      b. has breached a prohibition or failed to comply with an obligation of specified financial sanctions regulations. Examples of such sanctions include breaching asset freezing sanctions and other sectoral financial restrictions, such as Russian loan and credit or transferable security restrictions.

        A Relevant Firm is only required to report, however, if the information or other matter on which its knowledge or cause for suspicion is based came to it “in the course of carrying on its business”.

        For IPs, this means that they will only be subject to the UK Reporting Regime during the course of them acting as IPs (within the meaning of s388 of the IA 1986 or article 3 of the IO Northern Ireland). The Government guidance has given two examples where an IP is conducting “business that does not constitute insolvency practitioner business”; this is where they act as a receiver in the sale of a property, or undertake an independent business review. In either case, they will not be subject to sanctions reporting obligations.

        2. Where the designated person or prohibited person is a customer of the Relevant Firm, the firm must also report to OFSI the nature and amount or quantity of any funds or economic resources held by it for the customer at the time when it first had the knowledge or suspicion. 

          3. In addition, all UK firms (including but not limited to Relevant Firms) that hold any funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person or prohibited person must provide OFSI with a report stating the nature and amount or quantity of these funds and economic resources held by that firm as at 30 September of that calendar year, by no later than 30 November in that same calendar year.[3]

          Failure to comply with the UK Reporting Regime is an offence, and can result in both financial penalties and – in serious cases – potential imprisonment. Further information on requirements and how to report to OFSI can be found here.

          Following the establishment last October of the UK’s new trade sanctions regulator, the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (“OTSI”), certain firms (such as financial institutions and legal practitioners) are subject to new reporting requirements for suspected breaches of trade, shipping and aircraft sanctions (see our blog post here for more details). It should be noted that IPs, high-value dealers, art market participants and letting agencies are not presently subject to these mandatory reporting obligations.

          Recommendations for Compliance

          For firms that are now subject to the UK Report Regime, it is even more critical to implement appropriate measures to ensure that they do not breach UK sanctions.

          Unsurprisingly, OFSI recommends implementing a strong sanctions compliance programme, which is appropriate to the firm’s risk exposure. Such a programme may include:

          • Operational policies and procedures for sanctions compliance, which details due diligence requirements.
          • Appropriately sanction-screening business partners against UK and other relevant international sanctions lists.
          • Training staff on the importance of sanctions compliance, firm policies and red flag indicators.
          • Establishing confidential speak-up mechanisms for reporting suspected or actual sanctions breaches, and ensuring employees are protected from any retaliatory measures.
          • In the event that a suspected sanctions breach or dealing with a sanctioned person is identified, having appropriate procedures for reporting such matters to OFSI.

          If you have any questions about the new requirements, and need assistance in developing policies and procedures, please do not hesitate to reach out to the authors or your usual Crowell contact.

          [1] Pursuant to regs. 56(5) and (6) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017

          [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-financial-sanctions-faqs/uk-financial-sanctions-faqs

          [3] Prior to 2025, OFSI relied on its general information gathering powers to require firms to report information of frozen assets.  As part of the November 2024 amending regulations, it codified this requirement in sanctions regulations.

          On May 29, a day after the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued summary judgment in V.O.S. v. Trump blocking the IEEPA tariffs, the District Court for the District of Columbia (“DDC”) exercised jurisdiction in Learning Resources, Inc., et. al., v. Donald J. Trump, et. al. (25-cv-1248), denying the government’s motion to transfer the case to the CIT and granting a preliminary injunction to enjoin the government from enforcing the IEEPA tariffs against the Learning Resources plaintiffs.

          As with V.O.S., Learning Resources was filed following President Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) which imposed tariffs on a slew of countries. Plaintiffs Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind, Inc. contended that:

          • IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,
          • If IEEPA does authorize the President to impose tariffs, the challenged tariffs are not legal, and
          • if IEEPA were interpreted to allow for the President to impose the challenged tariffs, the statute itself would be unconstitutional on grounds it violates the nondelegation doctrine.

          Defendants Donald J. Trump and multiple government agencies and officials moved to transfer the case to the CIT, arguing that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(i) and 1337(c). Meanwhile, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. After hearing argument this past Tuesday, May 27, the Court ruled for Plaintiffs on both motions, denying the government’s motion to transfer and granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

          The DDC’s exercise of jurisdiction is a departure from several other district courts that granted the government’s motion to transfer substantively identical cases to the CIT on the basis that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising from statutes that provide for the imposition of tariffs. See Simplified v. Trump et al. Case No. 3:25-cv-00464 (N.D.Fla.); Webber et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security et al.; and Case No. 4:25-cv-00026 (D. Mont.). A motion to transfer remains pending in California v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-03372 (N.D. Cal.). Unlike those other courts, and unlike the CIT itself in V.O.S., the DDC determined that IEEPA is not properly construed as providing for the imposition of tariffs.

          The DDC stayed its order for 14 days to give the government an opportunity to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and the government did so the same day. Meanwhile, in V.O.S. case, which the government also immediately appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Federal Circuit entered an administrative stay pending further action on the government’s motion for an emergency stay pending appeal. The DDC decision assures that in addition to the merits question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs, the appellate courts (possibly including the Supreme Court) will also have to contend with the jurisdictional question.

          On May 23, 2025, the U.S. Departments of State (“State”) and the Treasury (“Treasury”) took actions that resulted in immediate sanctions relief for Syria. Specifically, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued General License 25 (“GL 25”) pursuant to the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (“SySR”), the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations (“NPWMD”), the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations (“IFSR”), the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (“GTSR”), and the Foreign Terrorist Organization Sanctions Regulations (“FTOSR”). In parallel, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and State took supporting actions outlined below.

          Treasury’s press release explained that the sanctions relief is intended to “facilitate activity across all sectors of the Syrian economy,” in order to “help rebuild Syria’s economy, financial sector, and infrastructure.”

          Treasury’s press release also emphasized that sanctions relief was extended “with the understanding that the country will not offer a safe haven for terrorist organizations and will ensure the security of its religious and ethnic minorities.”

          Click here to continue reading the full version of this alert.

          On May 28, 2025, the Court of International Trade granted summary judgment in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al v. Donald J. Trump Case No. 25-cv-66, ordering that all the executive orders imposing tariffs on the basis of IEEPA (Executive Order 14193, Executive Order 14194, Executive Order 14195, Executive Order 14257), were declared to be invalid as contrary to law.  The operation of the tariff orders is permanently enjoined and the Court ordered that administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall be issued within 10 calendar days.

          The Court did not rely on the non-delegation doctrine in its opinion, basing its decision on the fact that the President’s Executive Orders exceeded the authority of the IEEPA statute.  Specifically, the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders (10% tariff on all imports from all trading partners; temporary 10% retaliatory tariffs on China)  exceed the authority granted to the President by Congress through IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs (imposed when the President declared a national emergency under IEEPA to deal with the fentanyl and drug threats posed by international cartels) fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.

          In light of this decision, within 10 days, CBP will likely issue guidance for importers advising on instructions for imports without IEEPA tariffs. Importers should stay tuned for likely appeals and preserve their rights to refunds of duties paid.

          As of May 28, 2025, notices of appeal have been filed by the government.