Section 232: Pay First, Explain Yourself Later

(Plus: The CIT Tells Everyone to Calm Down)

Section 232 Content Enforcement Tightens as the Court of International Trade Redefines the Refund Playbook

Executive Summary

Two parallel developments are reshaping the risk landscape for U.S. importers subject to trade remedies:

• CBP has materially tightened enforcement of Section 232 "content value" rules, particularly for steel, aluminum, and now copper articles—despite the continued absence of formal, binding guidance; and
• The Court of International Trade (CIT) has clarified its authority to order reliquidation and refunds of unlawfully imposed tariffs, including IEEPA-based duties, without requiring protests or suspension of liquidation.

Together, these developments raise the bar for front-end compliance and documentation, while simultaneously lowering the temperature on panic-driven litigation strategies. Importers now face a more exacting administrative burden at entry—but a clearer judicial pathway if tariffs are ultimately invalidated.

CBP's Evolving Section 232 "Content Value" Position

Over the last several months, CBP's Base Metals Center of Excellence has been circulating guidance—now reflected in CF-28 and CF-29 requests—that sharply narrows how importers may determine the value subject to Section 232 duties.

The core position is straightforward, but its implications are not.

1. Chapter 72 Steel Articles: No Separation Allowed

Steel articles classified in Chapter 72 are treated as 100% steel, regardless of coatings, treatments, or downstream processing. Section 232 duties apply to the full entered value, with no deduction for:

• Manufacturing or fabrication
• Labor
• Surface treatments (e.g., galvanizing, painting)
• Coatings or finishes

This mirrors long-standing Customs valuation principles but forecloses arguments importers previously attempted to advance in derivative contexts.

2. Chapters 73, 76, and "Articles Classified Elsewhere"

For steel articles of Chapter 73, aluminum articles of Chapter 76, and articles classified outside Chapters 72/73/76:

• If the article is wholly of steel or aluminum → Section 232 applies to the full entered value.
• If the article contains non-steel or non-aluminum components → The duty applies only to the steel or aluminum content.

However, CBP has sharply constrained how that content value is calculated.

3. What "Steel or Aluminum Content Value" Actually Means

CBP's current position is that steel or aluminum content value equals:

The entered value of the finished article minus the cost to the importer of the non-steel or non-aluminum components.

Key clarifications:

• "Non-steel/aluminum content" means actual parts or components, not:
  • Fabrication
  • Machining
  • Labor
  • Overhead
• Costs that cannot be deducted for Chapter 72 articles cannot be deducted for derivative articles either.
• Surface treatments are integral, not separate components.
• Shared costs (e.g., packaging) must be apportioned across steel and non-steel content.
• If the importer cannot substantiate the steel/aluminum content value, CBP's instruction is blunt: declare the full entered value and assess Section 232 on 100%

4. Copper Is Now Squarely in the Same Box

CBP has confirmed that copper and copper alloys (including brass) are being treated the same as steel and aluminum:

• Subject to Section 232 duties
• No breakdown of chemical composition
• No deduction for alloying elements
• Chemistry is not a "separate component"

This is particularly significant for importers of electrical components, industrial equipment, and mixed-metal assemblies.

Administrative Reality: CF-28s Are the New Front Line

CBP is operationalizing this position not through rulemaking, but through information requests.

Recent CF-28s routinely demand:

• Detailed cost build-ups
• Manufacturer invoices for individual components
• Calculations showing how steel vs. non-steel value was derived
• Identification of the party responsible for the calculation
• Photographs and schematics of the imported article
• Confirmation that the importer understands—and agrees with—the methodology

Failure to respond within 30 days commonly results in CBP unilaterally increasing the declared steel/aluminum content value via CF-29.

In practical terms, this means importers must now obtain far more granular cost data from suppliers—often data suppliers are not accustomed to sharing.

Meanwhile, the Court of International Trade Changes the Refund Narrative

While CBP tightens enforcement at entry, the Court of International Trade has simultaneously clarified the back-end relief mechanism for unlawful tariffs, particularly those imposed under IEEPA.

Key Takeaways from CIT Decision No. 25-154

The CIT held that:

• It has inherent authority to order reliquidation and refunds of unlawful tariffs
• Liquidation does not eliminate the court's ability to grant relief
• Filing a post-liquidation protest under 19 U.S.C. §1514 may be futile
• The proper vehicle for relief is a 28 U.S.C. §1581(i) action, with a two-year statute of limitations

In other words: importers do not need to rush to suspend liquidation to preserve refund rights.

Strategic Implications for Importers

1. Compliance Burden Is Increasing—Now

CBP's enforcement posture means:

• Entry documentation must be defensible, not theoretical
• Cost allocations must reflect actual importer-paid amounts
• Supplier contracts may need to be revisited to ensure access to component cost data
• This is no longer a "reasonable estimate" environment.

2. Litigation Panic Is (Mostly) Unwarranted

The CIT's ruling lowers the temperature on aggressive "file now or lose your rights" narratives. Importers can:

• Monitor Supreme Court outcomes
• Preserve claims within the §1581(i) statute of limitations
• Avoid unnecessary injunction motions or premature lawsuits

That said, documentation today still determines recovery tomorrow.

3. The Front End and Back End Are Now Decoupled

CBP will continue to collect duties aggressively unless and until a court rules otherwise. The refund question is now clearly judicial, not administrative.

Importers must assume:

• You pay first
• You argue later
• You win only if your records support it