Frequently Asked Questions: IEEPA and Section 232

At a Glance

• To assist you in navigating these complex and evolving regulations, we have created a list of frequently asked questions we’ve received along with detailed answers.
• Our goal is to provide you with accurate and practical information to help you understand the impact of the tariffs on your business operations.

On March 21, 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) updated its Section 232 FAQs to address the recent expansion of the steel and aluminum derivative lists. We note that the additional FAQs added by CBP are under the header “Additional Section 232 Questions” on the agency’s website. CBP has left previous questions and responses with respect to exclusions, quotas, etc. on the same page that may not necessarily apply to the current implementation, so we recommend careful navigation and caution reliance on the webpage in total.  

CBP also previously put out FAQs with respect to the implementation of IEEPA tariffs on goods from China and Hong Kong, but has yet to release any IEEPA FAQs with respect to Mexico and Canada. 

Despite these updates, we are still receiving frequent questions from importers and have compiled our own additional FAQs and the answers thereto to assist companies navigating these issues. These are intended to supplement the FAQs we published last month. 

Please note that the implementation of these tariffs is still evolving, and CBP may publish additional guidance further clarifying some of the points below. Moreover, individual circumstances may vary, and we recommend consulting with counsel with respect to your specific supply chain.

Additional Section 232 FAQs

Question 1: In regard to declaring the value content of the steel and aluminum to reduce the derivative tariffs, if we start paying duties on the full value, what happens if we later reduce the dutiable value as we formalize a mechanism with the vendor? Is it possible to get a refund for the difference during reconciliation, is it a PSC, or is it simply not allowed with this EO?

As background, the value content reporting for the steel and aluminum tariffs is a separate subheading under 9903. To report the value content in the steel and aluminum tariffs, an entry summary line must have two entry summary lines with multiple tariff ordinals:

1. Primary HTS (Chapter 1-97) with value minus the value of aluminum/steel content
2. Primary HTS (Chapter 1-97) with value of the aluminum/steel content
   1. Steel/aluminum 25% tariff 9903 subheading

Reconciliations do not allow you to add tariff ordinals, add summary lines, or change tariff classifications. Therefore, adding an entry summary line for the steel/aluminum content with an entry summary line for the underlying exemption post-entry is not available via reconciliation. 

We believe that requesting refunds for an exemption may be available via PSC or protest, though. We understand CBP has informally commented that requesting refunds for USMCA/IEEPA claims will not be available, but, to our knowledge, the agency has made no similar statements regarding the steel/aluminum exclusions. In fact, CBP has acknowledged that PSCs can be used for purposes of correcting the country of cast or smelt, but not with respect to value. 

Nonetheless, it is our recommendation — when the information is available — to amend all entries within the 10-day resubmission period out of an abundance of caution. We imagine CBP will be targeting any changes in value or origin with requests for information.

Question 2: Is it a good practice to request a statement from our suppliers to show they support that the product does not contain steel or aluminum to demonstrate that products are not subject to the steel and aluminum tariffs?

Yes, we think that is a great request. 

However, we have learned that, at this time, it is impossible to make entry on a good classified under Chapters 72, 73 or 76 that is not U.S.-origin without entering the 9903 subheading for the 25% tariffs.

Question 3: Can you please shed insight into reports that the CBP system is not yet ready to process the breakdown of content for aluminum and steel? 

On March 11, 2025, at 9:00 p.m. ET (three hours before the tariffs were due to take effect), CBP issued instructions for entering steel and aluminum derivatives outside of Chapters 73 and 76, respectively, as partially subject to the Section 232 duties by value. We believe these systems were largely in place as they were just additional 9903 subheadings and separating out value, similar to heading 9802. 

• Steel
• Aluminum

However, CBP is still facing issues with disclaiming aluminum/steel content in Chapters 72, 73 and 76.

Question 4: For confirmation, if the shipment was exported before March 12 but arrives at the port after the tariffs are in place, do we have any relief from paying the tariffs, or are they applicable upon arrival for clearance?

The tariffs are due when an entry for consumption is filed after 12:01 a.m. ET on March 12. Unfortunately, there was no “on the water” or “in transit” exemption for the steel and aluminum tariffs. 

Question 5: If I am importing an article with cast iron, but not steel on the 2025 steel derivative list, how do I report my import?

For steel derivative articles, we are recommending that importers treat cast iron and other iron content distinct from that of steel given the explicit language of the March 5, 2025, Federal Register Notice that duties on steel derivative articles “shall only apply to the declared value of the steel content of the derivative article.” We have reached out to CBP for additional clarification on this point but have yet to get a response. 

Question 6: How do the U.S. Cast and Smelt and/or the U.S. Melt and Pour Provisions apply to aluminum and steel articles?

There is no U.S. Cast and Smelt or U.S. Melt and Pour exemption for aluminum and steel articles, or for the original 2020 derivatives. The exemption only applies to those aluminum and steel derivatives announced on February 14, 2025.

Although that’s only an exemption for derivative articles, importers still have to report the country of cast and smelt or melt and pour for all articles (including the U.S. cast/smelt or melt/pour).

Question 7: Does the use of a Chapter 98 Code exempt imports from Section 232 tariffs?

There has been some confusion with respect to this question given CBP’s outdated FAQs, which indicate that “[t]here is no exemption from 232 duties for imports with valid Chapter 98 claims.” CBP cites CSMS 39587858 in support of this statement. However, CSMS 39587858 merely provides for the methodology to transmit Chapter 98 HTS codes along with HTS codes subject to Section 232 tariffs and makes no reference to duty collection.  

Moreover, in response to the question “Are Section 232 duties owed on entries in which a claim under Chapter 98 is made,” CBP refers simply to CSMS 42355735. While we believe that CSMS 42355735 does not indicate that duties are due on Chapter 98 claims except for scenarios where the Chapter 98 provision provides for the assessment of duties on a portion of the article, we understand that others have interpreted this message differently to state that Chapter 98 does not exempt imports from Section 232 tariffs regardless of the import.  

We contend that such disagreements on interpretation are no longer at issue given the new governing Presidential Proclamations. CSMS 42355735 explicitly indicates that it is an interpretation of Presidential Proclamation 9739 which has been superseded by Presidential Proclamation 10895 and Presidential Proclamation 10896. Moreover, both CSMS 39587858 and CSMS 42355735 predate Presidential Proclamation 10895 and Presidential Proclamation 10896. Accordingly, neither message is instructive for purposes of interpreting these proclamations. 

For this reason, until CBP addresses the issue directly, importers can rely on the guiding language within the implementing Federal Register notice which makes clear that entries are both eligible for Chapter 98 treatment and “subject to the terms of such provision” (i.e., the terms of that provision provide for duty-free entry).  Specifically, the FR states as follows:

Goods for which entry is claimed under a provision of chapter 98 and which are subject to the additional duties prescribed herein shall be eligible for and subject to the terms of such provision and applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regulations, except that duties under subheading 9802.00.60 shall be assessed based upon the full value of the imported article.

If CBP were to take the position that Section 232 duties are due regardless of whether an importer claimed a provision of Chapter 98, then the final clause here — “except that duties under subheading 9802.00.60 shall be assessed based upon the full value of the imported article” — would be meaningless since duties would be assessed on the full value (or the full aluminum or steel value) of ALL Chapter 98 entries.

Question 8: CSMS 64384496 states that “[t]o report the primary country of smelt, secondary country of smelt, or country of most recent cast imports must report the International Organization Standardization (ISO) code on aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles.” Does that mean I only have to report either primary country of smelt, secondary country of smelt or country of most recent cast?

The use of “or” in the current CSMS is confusing. We read this “or” to signify that use of the ISO is appropriate regardless of which category you are reporting for, rather than the reporting itself being optional. Of course, importers don’t have to report a secondary country of smelt, as the CSMS indicates “Filers must report ‘Y’ for primary country of smelt; and/or secondary country of smelt.” Importers would use this option if there is only one country of smelt. You do have to report a country of cast because the purpose of the reporting is to identify whether the aluminum was smelt or cast in Russia. In theory, you could have aluminum smelt outside of Russia but cast there, in which case the 200% Russian duties would attach.

Question 9: Do the CBP FAQs provide guidance on what to report for the country of cast/smelt or melt/pour when it is not known at the time of entry?

For aluminum articles, CBP stated that, if the cast and smelt countries of aluminum are not known, an importer should claim Russia and pay the 200% tariffs on Russia and file a PSC later to correct it and recover the duties paid. We understand that this may be a significant outlay of duties for some importers and believe it is a business risk as to whether to follow that guidance.

CBP has affirmed that the use of "OTH" (i.e., not identifying a country), for steel melt and pour is acceptable for steel derivative articles. CBP did not provide direct guidance on what to report if the country of melt and pour for nonderivative articles is not known at the time of importation.

Question 10: Does CBP provide guidance on reporting country of cast/smelt and country of melt/pour for articles without steel and aluminum?

Where the product does not contain steel or aluminum content, but has a HTS classification that would be subject to Section 232 measures on derivative steel or aluminum articles if it contained steel or aluminum, ACE will still require the steel melt and pour or aluminum smelt and cast country to be reported.  

In such situations for steel derivative HTS classifications where the steel country of melt and pour is required, report the country reported as the country of origin of the non-steel article as the steel country of melt and pour.

For aluminum derivative HTS classifications, where the aluminum country of smelt and cast is required, report “Y” for the secondary country of smelt, and report the country reported as the country of origin of the non-aluminum article as the secondary country of smelt code, and as the country of cast.

Question 11: Do the CBP FAQs provide guidance on how to value the "steel or aluminum content?"

CBP stated that the value of aluminum or steel content should follow 19 USC 1401a valuation methodologies. Therefore, generally, if there is a sale of the "content," then the sale price would be used pursuant to the preferred method of valuation (transaction value). If there has not been a sale or the sales price is unknowable, then we believe it is reasonable for importers to rely on the other methods of value, applied hierarchically.

Question 12: Is there such a thing as a de minimis level of steel/aluminum content such that the content could be reported as zero value?

No. However, that is, once again, a business risk as to how much due diligence should be undertaken. CBP has indicated the capability to report as little as .01 kg.

Question 13: Should I be reporting the country of melt and pour or the country of smelt and cast for the country of origin on either steel and aluminum articles or derivates?

No. CBP’s CSMS messages are clear that country of origin should remain the country of origin as typically declared for customs purposes. Even in the case of derivative articles where the aluminum and steel content is valued on a separate line, the country of origin reported for that line should be the country of origin for the imported article as a whole. The country of smelt and cast and/or melt and pour is reported via the 54-record type 07 pursuant to ESF-9, ESF-109, and ESF-110 of ACE CATAIR. 

We are flagging this issue as we have been informed that some brokers are advising that, for Line 2 of the declaration for derivative articles which contains just the aluminum or steel content, importers should report the country of smelt and cast and/or melt and pour rather than the country of origin for the article as a whole. Again, this is NOT correct and could have negative implications triggering additional IEEPA or Section 301 duties on the aluminum or steel content that are not required by law. 

Additional IEEPA FAQs

Question 1: Some of our goods are non-USMCA goods, but we have filed to expedite the qualification analysis of goods manufactured in Mexico and Canada. If the certificate of origin is not available at the time of import but the product later qualifies, can we still recover the 25% duties through FTA reconciliation? Alternatively, should we process a PSC, or does the EO limit the refund process?

The trade community is hearing that CBP has informally stated that it does not believe importers are entitled to refunds of IEEPA tariffs when the USMCA claim/IEEPA exemption is submitted after importation. However, this has not been confirmed. 

As above with the steel/aluminum tariffs, because the USMCA/IEEPA exemption has been put in place using a 9903 subheading, we do know that there is no way to claim them with an FTA reconciliation (or value reconciliation) as additional tariff ordinal lines cannot be added and/or tariff classifications cannot be changed via reconciliation. 

Because there is an even higher risk of a refund claim being denied via a PSC or a protest with the IEEPA/USMCA exemption given CBP’s stance, we are especially recommending that any entry summaries be amended within 10 days of entry.  

We note that some importers are making USMCA claims if they believe them to be supportable at the time of entry and then intend on filing PSCs if those claims are incorrect (or they are unable to get a properly dated certificate). However, we caution that filing many PSCs to correct a similar issue could be interpreted as negligence by some CEEs. That, though, is a risk for the business to decide upon. A company may always choose to file a prior disclosure instead of PSCs as well.

Finally, just as a caution, the same CBP officials who informally stated that they didn’t believe refunds should be granted also indicated that the USMCA/IEEPA exemption could only be claimed for tariff classifications with an SPI “S” next to them on the tariff schedule in the Special column. We believe that interpretation to be incorrect.

Question 2: If after importation, I identify that in error I claimed to have a certificate of origin but did not actually receive it, can I correct this mistake through the PSC or is better to wait at the FTA reconsideration?

We recommend filing PSCs for errors in claiming the USMCA/IEEPA exemption as FTA recon/protests will not be available to tender money to CBP. However, see the above statement concerning lots of PSCs and negligence.

For More Information

Our goal is to provide you with accurate and practical information to help you understand the impact of the tariffs on your business operations. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our team.