On September 30, 2025, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule rescinding an interim final rule (IFR) introduced by the Biden administration.  This IFR had imposed new export licensing requirements on civilian firearms and related ammunition and components.  In its press release, BIS stated that the previous administration’s actions are “onerous.”  The IFR had also been a target of numerous complaints during the public comment period from U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors.  The final rule essentially restores the controls on most firearms that existed under the first Trump administration. 

The rescinded Biden-era IFR, published in April 2024, included several new restrictions, such as a “presumption of denial” policy (but not an outright prohibition) for licenses for civilian firearm exports to non-government end users in 36 destinations.  These were designated by the Department of State (State) as “high risk” destinations for diversion or misuse, mostly by drug trafficking gangs and other criminal groups in the Caribbean and Latin America.  The Biden-era controls also revoked some existing licenses to these countries and shortened the validity of other licenses, so that even multi-year license terms would expire in one year.   

Under the final rule, exports of EAR-controlled pistols, rifles, and non-long-barrel shotguns will remain subject to a worldwide export license requirement. BIS highlighted that, “long-barrel shotguns and most optics can be exported without a license to U.S. allies and certain partners” and promised a “streamlined” license application process, in accordance with “normal BIS practice.”  

Cancelation of the Biden-era firearms licensing policy reflects the reduced influence State now has in providing oversight of formally ITAR Category I articles.  Notably, in 2020, export controls over less sensitive, commercially available firearms and ammunition shifted from State to BIS jurisdiction.  This move, which dates to President Obama’s Export Control Reform initiative in 2013, was intended to streamline firearms licensing and treat many of these commodities as dual-use goods rather than defense articles that would have required State authorization. Human rights groups at the time raised many concerns that such transfers would lack transparency and government resources to ensure such items would not be diverted to criminal groups or human rights violators.  Nevertheless, in its recent press release on the rescission, for the transactions that still have a license requirement, BIS promised to continue screening applications to reduce the risk of weapons diversion to “wrongdoers.”   

Crowell will continue to monitor developments in U.S. export controls and their impact on the firearms industry.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) held calls on October 1 and October 6, 2025, to discuss its operations during the government shutdown, which began October 1.

During the October 6 call, CBP announced that it is not issuing refunds and payments from the Treasury Department during the government shutdown, including refunds on drawback claims, protests, and post-summary corrections.  Interest will continue to accrue after the statutory 30-day period for these refunds. In previous government shutdowns, CBP similarly did not have authorization to issue refunds; CBP noted that this guidance is under re-evaluation and will notify importers of any changes.  CBP also advised that, at this time, there are no additional actions that importers must take as they await refunds for approved protests.

CBP confirmed that all other CBP functions and operations will proceed as normal during the government shutdown and funding hiatus.  This includes the processing of cargo, liquidation, in-bond processes, and examinations. CBP stated that there has been no reduction in staffing levels impacting operations, and nearly all CBP staff will continue working—including those with excepted or exempt status. This includes supply chain security specialists, import specialists, CEE staff, national account managers, trade remedies inbox staff, and staff in the Rulings and Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures divisions. All ports of entry are staffed and will operate as normal. CBP also confirmed that it will continue to implement tariff updates and issue CSMS messages as normal.

Additional questions regarding CBP’s operations during the government shutdown can be directed to TradeEvents@cbp.dhs.gov.

On October 7, 2025, the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation that imposes further trade restrictions on imports of steel products from non-EU countries. This Proposal is part of the implementation of the Commission’s Steel and Metals Action Plan unveiled in March 2025, and aims to address the concerns of the EU steel manufacturing industry as the existing EU steel safeguards expire in June 2026.

This proposal marks a significant departure from the current EU trade policy and includes a stated intention to remain WTO-compliant. That would involve opening negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT to modify or withdraw certain WTO concessions for the steel products concerned and offer country-specific allocations to other WTO members. That is a challenging intention for an all-encompassing steel measure involving many WTO members having a substantial interest in EU exports. At the same time, it could be a first step in the creation of a “EU-US metals alliance” announced by EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič in July 2025.

Below are the key actions listed in the Proposal:  

  • New trade measure to replace the current steel safeguards.

This measure includes:

  • Tariff Rate Quotas (“TRQs”) for global steel imports
    • Set on an annual basis but managed quarterly,
    • Specific to each product category (see Annex II of the Proposal),
    • Set at a significantly lower level than the current steel safeguard TRQs (47% less),
    • Product categories remain the same as in the steel safeguards with some limited differences to the customs codes listed in each product category (see Annex I of the Proposal listing the subject steel products)   
    • 50% tariffs on imports exceeding the TRQs without any exclusion procedure;
    • TRQ levels based on 2013 market shares of steel imports;
    • No carry-over from one quarter to another;
    • No expiry date of the measure, allowing an indefinite enforcement;
    • Assessment of the need to amend the measure within 2 years of its adoption;
    • Evaluation of the measure’s effectiveness by 1st July 2031 and every 5 years thereafter; and
    • TRQs do not apply to imports of steel products from Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein.
  • Introduction of the “Melt and Pour” Rule.

The aim is to prevent circumvention of trade defence measures or tariffs in the steel sector. Origin of a steel product will now be determined by the original location in which raw steel and iron has been initially produced in liquid form within a steelmaking or iron-making furnace and subsequently cast into its primary solid state, regardless of further processing, be it arguably substantial. This is a total reversal of the EU origin rules in the steel sector, where substantial transformation, be it actual or based on “list rule” presumptions, was the rule.

Crowell’s international trade attorneys are monitoring ongoing developments in the EU steel policy. For more information, please contact Vassilis Akritidis (vakritidis@crowell.com), Dan Cannistra (dcannistra@crowell.com) and Jean-Baptiste Blancardi (jblancardi@crowell.com).

In issuing the Affiliates Rule with immediate effect, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) drastically expanded the number of entities subject to the BIS’ most restrictive export tools by applying the same trade prohibitions to any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more entities listed on BIS’ Entity List, Military End-User (MEU) List, or certain SDN entities.

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

On September 24th, 2025 US Customs and Border Protection issued a Withhold Release Order under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1307) against Giant Manufacturing Co LTD for any bicycles, parts or accessories manufactured in Taiwan based on reasonable indication of forced labor. CBP identified the presence of five of the ILO indicators of forced labor:

  • abuse of vulnerability,
  • abusive working and living conditions,
  • debt bondage,
  • withholding of wages and
  • excessive overtime.

Going forward, any shipment of the subject products manufactured by Giant Manufacturing’s Taiwan factories will be subject to immediate detention upon arrival into the United States. If a shipment is detained, under 19 CFR 12.43(a) the importer of record will have 3 months from the date of detention to provide adequate proof to CBP that the goods were not manufactured using forced labor. If the documentation sufficiently demonstrates that forced labor was not used then the goods will be released to the importer, otherwise the goods must be exported or destroyed pursuant to 19 CFR 12.44.

Giant Manufacturing has announced it plans on petitioning CBP to have the order revoked and reiterated the steps it proactively took to address possible forced labor concerns.

Global Trade Talks co-hosts Nicole Simonian and Dj Wolff welcome Karen Gerwitz, President of the World Trade Center Denver, as she provides insight to our listeners on how companies are managing and operating in this uncertain trade environment where they are often waiting for the next shoe to drop. 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 snapback of UN sanctions on Iran took effect on September 27, 2025, after the E3 (France, Germany, UK) triggered the mechanism under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the Security Council failed to extend sanctions relief. Please see our previous Alert on the snapback process and what this could mean for global businesses.

The EU and UK have begun to re-impose on Iran their respective sanctions pre-dating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

  • EU Actions: On September 29, the EU announced the re-imposition of a broad array of restrictive measures on Iran:
    • Council Regulation 2025/1975: Amends Council Regulation 267/2012, restoring sectoral and trade sanctions, including:
      • bans on the supply to Iran of nuclear and ballistic missile-related items, gold, precious metals, diamonds, certain software, and key equipment for the energy sector;
      • prohibitions on the import, purchase and transport of crude oil, gas, petrochemical and petroleum products and related services;
      • transport restrictions, such as prohibitions on providing services to Iranian vessels/aircraft suspected of carrying prohibited goods; and
      • various banking and financial restrictions, including with respect to the transfer of funds to and from Iran and prohibitions on new Iranian banking relationships.

Certain prohibitions are subject to time-bound wind-down provisions for pre-existing contracts.

The EU’s sanctions measures mirror the scope of EU sanctions on Iran prior to the 2013 Joint Plan of Action (an interim agreement between Iran and the P5, plus Germany, pursuant to which the EU suspended certain measures before its more fulsome lifting of sanctions post-JCPOA), and notably go further than the UN sanctions alone, including restrictions on energy, transport, and finance.

  • UK Actions: In parallel,  the UK has:
    • Passed regulations to amend the UK’s Iran nuclear sanctions regime (which, post-Brexit, is autonomous from the EU) to reflect the reintroduction of UN sanctions.  In particular, the amending regulations:
      • re-introduce references to UNSC Resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1929 (and the UK’s obligations under the same);
      • make technical amendments to ensure all lists of controlled items reflect UN Security Council control lists;
      • amend the asset freezing criteria to ensure there are grounds under UK law to designate UNSC sanctioned persons and entities; and
      • introduce an exemption enabling payments in respect of certain HMT sovereign debt products (in line with other sanctions regimes).
    • Updated its Sanctions List, adding 192 individuals and entities that are now subject to asset freezing sanctions.  These sanctioned individuals and entities include major Iranian banks, energy and petrochemical firms, government ministries, and companies linked to nuclear and missile proliferation.

The UK’s amendments to date are fairly contained since the UK (and EU) had maintained measures consistent with many of the UN sanctions on Iran. The UK has stated that it intends to bring in legislation to impose further sectoral measures, targeting “finance, energy, shipping, software, and other significant industries which are advancing Iranian nuclear escalation.”

On September 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion vacating and remanding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s forced labor Finding against Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., a Dominican Republic-based aluminum extruder. The court found that CBP’s determination, which prohibited the entry of Kingtom’s aluminum extrusions under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, was arbitrary and capricious because it lacked a satisfactory explanation and did not provide a rational connection between the facts found and the agency’s decision. The public administrative record and Federal Register notice contained only conclusory statements and failed to cite specific evidence or describe the circumstances of the investigation, distinguishing this case from prior decisions where agencies provided at least a minimal factual basis.

Judge Timothy M. Reif emphasized that administrative agencies must articulate clear and reasoned grounds for enforcement actions, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. In this case, the court determined that neither the heavily redacted administrative record nor CBP’s published finding met the legal standard for adequate explanation. As a result, the court vacated the forced labor finding against Kingtom and remanded the matter to CBP for further explanation or reconsideration. CBP is required to file a remand redetermination within 90 days, after which the parties will have an opportunity to comment.

Notably, this was the first time CBP issued a direct finding without escalating the enforcement action from a Withhold Release Order (WRO). The difference between a WRO and a Finding is that for a Finding, there is conclusive evidence that the goods are made with forced labor. In this action, the Finding was issued without giving the company an opportunity to respond or provide evidence to the contrary.

The lack of an explanation here and the CIT’s requirement that reasoning be provided moving forward means that CBP will be required to explain Findings in the future, which will offer importers an even clearer blueprint of the risk signals and indicators to which CBP pays attention when investigating and assessing a party.

Crowell continues to monitor developments in the Forced Labor space and their impact on industry.

On August 28, France, Germany, and the UK (the E3) initiated a “snapback” process that will reimpose UN sanctions on Iran on September 27 unless the Security Council acts. On September 19, a resolution to extend sanctions relief failed to receive sufficient votes at the Security Council and was not adopted. If snapback occurs, previously imposed UN sanctions on Iran will be reinstated. This includes an arms embargo on Iran, a ban on supplying nuclear-related technologies and materials, and an asset freeze on designated individuals and entities.

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

On August 27, 2025, the Department of State published a final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) and updating the U.S. Munitions List (“USML”). The rule, effective September 15, 2025, implements changes following public comment and periodic review required under the Arms Export Control Act.

The latest ITAR amendments remove certain items from control, including lead-free birdshot ammunition and GNSS anti-jam/anti-spoofing systems, based on assessments that these no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. At the same time, new controls have been added for advanced aircraft parts and large unmanned underwater vehicles (“UUVs”) with specific military features, reflecting ongoing technology developments and national security priorities. The Department also clarified definitions for terms such as “foreign advanced military aircraft” and “mission systems,” and added the F-47 fighter to the USML. These revisions respond directly to industry feedback and public comments, with refinements to controls for aircraft radar, IEDs, body armor, antennas, and other entries.

A significant feature of the rule is a new exemption in ITAR §126.9(u), which allows for the temporary export, reexport, and import of certain large UUVs (under 8,000 lbs.) for scientific research, civil infrastructure, or search and rescue purposes, provided there is no transfer of registration, control, or ownership to a foreign person. This exemption is intended to facilitate legitimate civilian and research uses of advanced underwater technology while maintaining strict controls against diversion to military applications.

For items removed from the USML, exporters must now review jurisdiction and licensing procedures under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). Existing DDTC licenses for transitioning items will remain valid for up to three years to allow industry time to adjust to the new regulatory environment.

These targeted revisions are part of the Department’s ongoing effort to keep ITAR focused on items that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage and to ensure the USML reflects technological and commercial realities. Exporters, manufacturers, and research institutions should review the revised USML and ITAR provisions to ensure compliance.

Crowell will continue to monitor developments in U.S. export controls and their impact on industry.