Section 232 vs. Section 301 Tariffs:Why Importers Are Receiving CF-28 and CF-29 Notices from U.S. Customs
For many U.S. importers, additional duties imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 have become a routine part of international trade. However, recent enforcement activity involving CF-28 (Request for Information) and CF-29 (Notice of Action) shows that even experienced importers are increasingly facing scrutiny from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
While many companies view tariff compliance as a cost of doing business, the reality is that misunderstandings about tariff applicability, classification, origin, or customs value frequently trigger compliance reviews by CBP. These reviews often begin with a CF-28 and can quickly escalate into a CF-29, costly duty reassessments, civil penalties, or even shipment seizures, all with strict response deadlines.
This article explains why these customs actions arise, what importers must understand immediately, and when legal counsel becomes critical.
Section 232 vs. Section 301 Tariffs: Triggers to CBP Enforcement
Tariffs imposed under Section 232 are intended to address imports that may threaten the national security of the United States. Under this authority, the U.S. Department of Commerce conducts investigations into whether specific imported products undermine domestic industries considered essential to national defense or critical infrastructure. If such a threat is identified, the President may impose tariffs, quotas, or other import restrictions.
Section 232 tariffs are most commonly associated with imports such as:
steel and aluminum products;
certain metals and alloys used in defense and industrial supply chains; and,
related manufactured products where the imported component undermines U.S. producers
Because Section 232 tariffs can apply across multiple countries and product types, importers must ensure that their product descriptions, Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classifications, and country-of-origin assessments accurately reflect whether a Section 232 duty applies.
Mistakes in declaring the correct duty can prompt customs scrutiny and unexpected back-duty assessments.
By contrast, Tariffs imposed under Section 301 are designed to respond to unfair foreign acts, policies, or practices that are unjustified, unreasonable, discriminatory, or that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Several types of foreign conduct commonly trigger a Section 301 investigation, including:
Intellectual Property Rights Violations. A foreign government tolerates or facilitates widespread infringement of U.S. patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
Market Access Barriers. Foreign regulations make it disproportionately difficult for U.S. products or services to enter or compete in a market.
Excess Capacity and Dumping. Foreign industries produce beyond domestic demand, often subsidized, and export at below market prices to capture U.S. market share.
Forced Labor Supply Chains. Systemic failure to enforce bans on the importation of goods produced with forced labor can be deemed a burden on U.S. businesses that must compete fairly.
Although Section 301 tariffs can be applied to imports from any country, many currently affect goods imported from China, covering thousands of product categories across industries such as electronics, industrial machinery, automotive components, and consumer products. Because Section 301 tariffs are tied directly to Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifications, even minor classification errors can result in incorrect duty declarations.
Two Current Section 301 Investigations Importers Should Watch
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), in charge of conducting Section 301 investigations, has recently launched broad investigations under Section 301 targeting global trade practices that may lead to new tariffs later this year:
A wideranging probe into alleged failures to enforce forced labor import prohibitions and other unfair practices involving some 60 foreign countries.
A related investigation targeting alleged structural excess capacity and discriminatory practices across 16 trading partners, including the EU, China, India, South Korea, and others potentially opening the door for additional tariff actions this summer.
These actions are significant because they signal the administration’s intent to expand tariff duties against a broader range of products and trading partners. The initiation of these investigations, long before duty orders or tariffs are imposed, already affects global supply chains and duty planning for importers.
When Customs Starts Asking Questions and Taking Action
CBP uses CF28 and CF29 notices to investigate and enforce compliance with tariffs. These notices are not procedural formalities, they are often the first step toward duty reassessment or enforcement action.
CF28 (Request for Information): CBP requests documentation to verify tariff classification, valuation, country of origin, or the application of Section 232 or 301 tariffs. Importers usually have 30 days to respond, and an incomplete response can escalate the matter.
CF29 (Notice of Action): This notice signals CBP’s intent to take action on an entry, including reclassification, additional duties, penalties, or even seizure of merchandise.
Importers who receive a CF-28 should treat the notice seriously and respond carefully. Even minor discrepancies in documentation, misclassification, or valuation errors can trigger these notices and lead to retroactive duty assessments covering multiple years of import transactions. Because Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs can significantly increase duty liability, customs authorities frequently scrutinize entries where those tariffs should apply but were not declared. Incomplete or poorly documented responses may prompt CBP to issue a CF-29 or initiate further enforcement review.
In some cases, CBP may also evaluate whether the importer exercised “reasonable care” in declaring entry information. If CBP determines that inaccurate declarations resulted from negligence or material misstatements, the agency may pursue civil penalties under federal customs law.
For importers operating on narrow margins, retroactive duty assessments and penalties can quickly become a substantial financial burden.
Mitigating Tariff Exposure and Compliance Risks
Importers that wait until they receive a CF-28 or CF-29 may already be behind the curve. Proactive compliance measures can significantly reduce exposure to tariff disputes and enforcement actions. These measures commonly include:
Classification Reviews. Ensuring that imported products are accurately classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is critical to determining whether Section 232 or Section 301 tariffs apply.
Supply Chain Verification. Importers should verify supplier documentation relating to manufacturing origin, particularly where country-of-origin declarations affect tariff applicability.
Valuation Compliance. Declared customs values should be consistent with internal financial records and supporting documentation such as purchase orders, invoices, and production cost data.
Post-Entry Corrections. If errors are discovered after entry submission, importers may be able to correct them through a Post Summary Correction (PSC) before the entry is liquidated.
Taking corrective action early can sometimes reduce exposure to penalties or enforcement actions.
Act Now to Protect Your Business
Tariff disputes and customs enforcement actions often involve strict procedural deadlines and complex regulatory requirements. Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs have become central features of modern U.S. trade policy, but they also represent a significant compliance risk for importers. With CF28 and CF29 notices on the rise and new Section 301 investigations underway, waiting is not an option. Companies facing customs inquiries or uncertain tariff exposure should seek experienced counsel immediately.
Legal counsel experienced in regulatory compliance and enforcement may become necessary when importers must pursue corrective or defensive measures. When administrative remedies are insufficient, importers may challenge certain CBP determinations before the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), the federal court with jurisdiction over tariff disputes, duty assessments, and customs enforcement matters. Because the ability to challenge customs determinations often depends on meeting strict filing deadlines, early legal evaluation can be critical.
At Imperial Shield PLLC, we focus on regulatory compliance, customs enforcement, and civil asset protection, helping businesses navigate complex trade rules and respond effectively to CBP enforcement.
If your company has received a CF28, CF29, or has concerns about Section 232 or Section 301 tariffs, contact us today. Early action can protect your shipments, limit penalties, and safeguard your company’s financial stability.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
-
A CF-28 (Request for Information) is issued by CBP to verify tariff classification, valuation, country of origin, or Section 232/301 applicability. It often signals the start of a compliance review.
-
A CF-29 (Notice of Action) signals CBP’s intent to take action, including reclassification, additional duties, penalties, or seizure. Immediate review is required.
-
Section 232 protects national security (e.g., steel, aluminum), while Section 301 targets unfair foreign trade practices like IP violations, market barriers, dumping, and forced labor.
-
Section 232 affects steel, aluminum, and related products; Section 301 mainly targets goods from China, including electronics, machinery, and automotive parts.
-
Misclassification or valuation errors can trigger CF-28/29 notices, retroactive duties, and civil penalties, even for minor mistakes.
-
A PSC corrects errors on an entry before liquidation, reducing penalties and demonstrating “reasonable care” to CBP.
-
Review classifications, verify supplier documentation, ensure valuation compliance, and monitor Section 232/301 updates proactively.
-
Seek counsel immediately if you receive a CF-28/29 or are unsure of tariff exposure. Legal experts can handle PSCs, protests, or CIT challenges.
-
Ongoing probes into forced labor and excess capacity across multiple countries could expand tariffs, impacting supply chains and duty planning.
-
Act fast. Review documentation, ensure compliance, and consult counsel to limit penalties, protect shipments, and safeguard your business.