Customs Attorneys and the Tariff Landscape in 2025
International trade has never been a static environment, but the pace of change in US customs and tariff policy over the past several years has been remarkable. Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. Country of origin enforcement actions that have swept through entire industries. New antidumping and countervailing duty orders issued with the velocity that makes compliance planning a moving target for importers.
For US businesses that depend on imported goods — whether as finished products or as components in domestic manufacturing — this environment is creating cost exposure and legal risk that many companies aren’t fully equipped to manage. The importers who are navigating it most effectively share a common characteristic: they have experienced customs legal counsel as a standing part of their trade operations, not a resource they call when something goes wrong.
The Tariff Classification Problem Is Getting More Complex
Tariff classification has always been technical. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule runs to thousands of pages of headings, subheadings, notes, and chapter headings that must be read in a specific legal sequence. Customs classification is governed by General Rules of Interpretation that provide a framework, but applying that framework to specific products — particularly products at the margins of classification categories — requires genuine legal expertise.
What’s changed in recent years is the stakes. When Section 301 tariffs imposed additional duties of 7.5%, 15%, or 25% on specific HTSUS subheadings covering Chinese-origin goods, the financial implications of a classification decision multiplied dramatically. A product that previously attracted a 3% duty might now attract 28% if classified into a subheading subject to Section 301 — and the difference between that subheading and an adjacent one that doesn’t carry the additional tariff may be legally defensible.
A customs attorney with deep experience in classification disputes knows how to identify those classification positions, evaluate their legal defensibility, pursue advance rulings from CBP to establish certainty, and — when CBP disagrees — protest adverse decisions through the administrative and judicial processes that are available.
Country of Origin: The Question That Changed Everything
If tariff classification became more consequential with the imposition of Section 301 tariffs, country of origin became the central question in international trade compliance. When additional tariffs apply specifically to Chinese-origin goods, every importer sourcing from China has an interest in understanding whether goods that are processed, assembled, or manufactured in third countries still carry a Chinese origin for tariff purposes.
The “substantial transformation” test and the more specific origin rules applicable to different product categories under HTSUS general notes are not simple to apply, and CBP’s enforcement in this area has been aggressive. Importers who have restructured supply chains through Vietnam, Malaysia, India, or other third countries to reduce Chinese origin content have found that CBP looks hard at whether those operations represent genuine substantial transformation or more assembly of Chinese components.
Getting this wrong has serious consequences. Misdeclaration of country of origin — whether intentional or not — can result in seizure, forfeiture, penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592, and in extreme cases, criminal referral. The difference between an inadvertent error and a penalty that reflects reasonable care and good faith compliance efforts is, in large part, a function of whether the importer had proper legal guidance when making origin decisions.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: A Trap for the Uninformed
Antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders cover a significant and growing number of product categories and country combinations. When goods subject to an AD/CVD order enter the US, the importer is required to deposit estimated duties at entry — duties that may be subsequently adjusted upward through administrative reviews that don’t conclude until years after importation.
The retroactive nature of AD/CVD assessments creates a particular compliance challenge. An importer may believe they’ve paid their duty obligations at entry, only to receive a bill years later reflecting a final assessment that is dramatically higher than the estimated rate. For importers who didn’t adequately account for this potential liability, the results can be existential.
Beyond the financial exposure, scope determinations — whether a particular product falls within the scope of an existing AD/CVD order — are themselves complex legal questions. Products that are similar to, but arguably distinguishable from, covered merchandise are often contested in scope inquiries before the Department of Commerce. This is technical legal territory where the expertise of customs lawyers with specific AD/CVD experience is the difference between a defensible scope position and unnecessary duty liability.
Customs Broker and Trade Intermediary Liability
One dimension of customs law that doesn’t get enough attention is the liability exposure of customs brokers, freight forwarders, and other trade intermediaries. These professionals are subject to a dense regulatory framework governing their obligations to CBP, their clients, and third parties. License requirements, record-keeping obligations, power of attorney requirements, and the scope of broker liability for client customs violations are all areas where the regulatory stakes are high.
For customs brokers and freight forwarders, working with a customs law firm that understands the specific regulatory environment for licensed trade professionals provides a qualitatively different level of counsel than general commercial legal representation. The firm’s understanding of how CBP interprets broker obligations, how penalty proceedings against brokers are conducted, and what mitigation arguments are most effective in those proceedings is directly relevant to the risk management needs of these businesses.
The Value of Institutional Knowledge in Customs Practice
Customs law is one of those practice areas where institutional experience — accumulated across decades of cases, disputes, and interactions with the agency — genuinely matters in ways that are hard to replicate. Knowing how CBP’s Centers of Excellence and Expertise approach specific product categories. Understanding how particular courts have analyzed classification or origin disputes involving products similar to a client’s. Knowing which arguments have been persuasive in penalty mitigation proceedings and which ones tend to fall flat. These are the deposits of experience that a firm entering its ninth decade of customs practice brings to every client matter.
Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O’Hara, LLP has been navigating US customs law since 1933 — through trade policy cycles, regulatory overhauls, and the full range of enforcement climates that the agency has moved through over that period. The firm’s attorneys have earned a reputation that brings referrals from peer firms who encounter customs matters too complex for generalist representation.
In a trade environment as volatile and consequential as the current one, that depth of experience isn’t just a credential — it’s a practical resource that makes a material difference in outcomes.
Whether your business is facing an immediate customs enforcement matter or looking to build a proactive compliance foundation that can withstand the scrutiny of the current trade environment, SSSPO is ready to help.