The United States is seeking to replace Section 122 duties with Section 301 duties before 24 July.

The February ruling on the IEEPA

According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in February that the President could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs . The Trump administration had relied on that statute to apply duties to imports from most countries, after describing US trade deficits as a national emergency . AP reports that the ruling set aside the broadest duties introduced on that legal basis .

The decision led the administration to reimburse importers that had paid those duties, according to the same article . The agency states that import-duty receipts reached more than $31.4 billion in October, then $22 billion in March and April after the ruling . It then refers to a negative balance of $42 million in May and a loss of $25.6 billion in June .

The 24 July deadline for Section 122

AP reports that, after the Supreme Court's February ruling, the Trump administration used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10% duties globally . According to AP, that legal basis authorises such duties only for 150 days . The duties cited by the agency expire on 24 July .

AP indicates that any extension would fall to Congress . The same article states that, before that deadline, the administration is seeking to replace duties based on Section 122 with duties adopted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 . AP presents Section 301 as a provision allowing the President to impose duties and other sanctions against countries whose trade practices are described as "unjustifiable", "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" .

The Section 301 procedures cited

AP reports that the Trump administration presents Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a basis allowing duties and other sanctions to be imposed on countries whose trade practices are described as "unjustifiable", "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" . The agency indicates that this basis was already used by Donald Trump against China during his first term .

According to AP, recourse to Section 301 requires prior procedural steps, including the collection of public comments and the holding of hearings before duties are imposed . AP also states that Section 301 duties are not subject to a ceiling, expire after four years and can be renewed .

Fortune reports that a measure covering many imports from Brazil is due to enter into force later in July, with duties of 25% . According to Fortune, that measure was announced after a year-long investigation conducted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which concluded that Brazil had engaged in unfair trade practices .

The investigations and countries mentioned

AP indicates that the Trump administration is relying on two investigations opened under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to replace tariff revenue lost after the Supreme Court's February ruling . The first investigation concerns 60 countries, representing 99% of US imports, over the alleged inadequacy of measures against imports linked to forced labour . In that case, USTR Jamieson Greer proposed duties of 10% on 16 countries and 12.5% on 44 countries, according to AP .

AP cites a second Section 301 investigation concerning 16 trading partners, including China, the European Union and Japan, regarding alleged overproduction said to depress global prices and disadvantage US manufacturers . Brazil appears separately in AP's article: Donald Trump announced duties of 25% on certain Brazilian imports, citing trade practices considered unfair .

AP indicates that US import-duty receipts peaked at more than $31.4 billion in October, before returning to $22 billion in March and April . AP then mentions a deficit of $42 million in May, followed by a loss of $25.6 billion in June . Fortune cites about $71 billion in refunds already paid and $166 billion expected in total, according to the monthly statement of the US Treasury . The material provided does not contain the text of the Supreme Court ruling or the USTR's official notices .