Express Fasteners v. CBP: Section 232 Goes to Court

As previously predicted and communicated to Trade-IQ clients, CBP's aggressive interpretation of Section 232 steel and aluminum valuation was always going to end up in court. That moment has now arrived.

Last week, Express Fasteners filed suit at the U.S. Court of International Trade, directly challenging CBP's current enforcement posture on how Section 232 duties are calculated for steel derivative products—specifically fasteners.

This is not a technical skirmish. It is a structural challenge to CBP's valuation authority under Section 232.

What the Case Is Really About (And Why It Matters)

At its core, the Express Fasteners case challenges CBP's position that Section 232 steel duties apply to the entire entered value of certain steel derivatives—including machining, processing, overhead, and profit—rather than being limited to the value of the steel content itself.

The lawsuit alleges that CBP has quietly shifted policy through internal Base Metals CEE guidance, treating "steel content" as a loaded value rather than a material-only figure. That internal shift, according to the complaint, directly conflicts with:

• The text and structure of the Section 232 proclamations
• CBP's own prior public guidance and FAQs
• Longstanding customs valuation principles
• Administrative law requirements (APA and PRA concerns)

In short: CBP is accused of changing the rules without telling anyone—and charging billions more as a result.

Why This Case Was Inevitable

From an enforcement perspective, CBP has been steadily moving toward full-value Section 232 assessments by default, particularly for "all-steel" products like fasteners, fittings, and fabricated components. Importers have been seeing this play out through:

• CF-28s demanding steel content calculations that include non-material costs
• CF-29s rejecting metal-only valuation methodologies
• Informal references to unpublished CEE guidance as justification

That trajectory was always unsustainable.

Once CBP began enforcing an internal interpretation that materially expanded duty liability without formal rulemaking, litigation was no longer a question of if—only when.

Expected Outcomes (And What Each Scenario Means)

If Express Fasteners Prevails

• CBP may be forced to walk back or formally revise its Section 232 valuation guidance
• "Metal-content-only" methodologies regain credibility for derivative products
• Refund exposure becomes real, not theoretical
• Protests currently being denied or held could reopen

If CBP Prevails

• The agency's "loaded steel content" theory effectively becomes judicially blessed
• Section 232 becomes, in practice, a full-value tariff for many steel derivatives
• Compliance risk and audit exposure increase significantly for importers relying on cost-segmentation

Most Likely Near-Term Outcome

Regardless of ultimate merits, expect:

• Protests to be stayed or slow-walked
• Heightened scrutiny by the trade bar
• A chilling effect on aggressive enforcement until the court weighs in

Copycat Suits Are Coming

Express Fasteners will not be the last plaintiff.

Fasteners are simply the cleanest fact pattern to bring this case: high steel content, standardized products, and massive duty exposure. But the same valuation theory impacts hundreds of downstream products—from fabricated components to industrial assemblies.

Expect additional lawsuits, coordinated protests, and potential industry-wide test cases if CBP does not clarify or retreat from its current position.

Executive-Level Implications

For importers and compliance leaders, this case underscores a larger reality:

• Section 232 is no longer just a tariff—it is a valuation regime
• Internal CBP guidance can materially change duty exposure overnight
• Litigation risk is now part of tariff strategy
• Companies that have documented, defensible metal-content methodologies are in a far stronger position than those that defaulted to CBP's assumptions.

Bottom Line

This case confirms what many in the trade community already understood: Section 232 enforcement has drifted well beyond its original guardrails, and the courts were always going to be the venue where that got tested.

We predicted this moment.

Now the real question is how many companies decide to follow Express Fasteners into court—and how much tariff exposure ultimately gets unwound.