Section 338: Presidential Tariffs and Import Bans

Last updated 12 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Trade retaliation invites a calculation: how much extra will an imported product cost? Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits a president confronting specified trade discrimination to move beyond additional duties and exclude products from the offending country. For an excluded shipment, a willingness to pay no longer solves the problem.

That power turns on more than the label “unfair trade.” Congress supplied separate findings for imposing duties and then ordering exclusion. Those steps are what connect an escalating trade dispute to the presidential authority that can close a market.

The finding that opens the door to duties

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is codified at 19 U.S.C. 1338. It directs the president to declare new or additional duties by proclamation when the president makes the required factual finding and determines that the public interest will be served. A proclamation is the formal presidential action that puts the specified measure into effect.

One trigger is an unreasonable foreign charge, regulation or limitation on American products that is not equally enforced on similar products from every foreign country. That provision reaches the handling of American products within the foreign country, their transit through it, and their reexport from it. The comparison with other countries is part of the rule: a burden on American trade alone does not describe the full statutory test.

The other trigger is discrimination through a foreign law, administrative regulation or practice that places U.S. commerce at a disadvantage compared with another country’s commerce. The listed forms include customs and port charges, product classifications, restrictions and prohibitions. That is why Section 338 is broader than a complaint about another country’s tariff rate.

The U.S. International Trade Commission must stay informed about the specified discrimination and provide information and recommendations to the president. That reporting duty and the president’s factual finding are different jobs within the statute.

A ceiling on duties is not a price for admission

The president must choose new or additional duty rates intended to offset the burden or disadvantage, with a ceiling of 50 percent ad valorem or its equivalent. Ad valorem means based on the value of the goods; the ceiling limits the additional rate authorized by this provision. The offset language also matters: the statutory purpose is tied to the burden identified in the finding.

A proclamation may extend to the whole foreign country or be confined to specified subdivisions of it. The statute also reaches affected products imported indirectly as well as directly. Sending a product through another country therefore does not, by itself, answer whether the measure applies.

For the duties described in subsection (d), the statute provides for collection 30 days after the proclamation. That timing rule belongs to the duty mechanism; it should not be replaced with a deadline taken from a different tariff law.

In the Canada implementation, covered products remain subject to applicable antidumping, countervailing and other duties, taxes and fees in addition to the Section 338 duty. Antidumping duties address foreign goods sold in the United States at less than fair value, subject to the required findings about harm to U.S. industry. Countervailing duties address government subsidies for manufacturing, producing or exporting goods. The practical point is that the Section 338 ceiling is not a promise that a product’s entire import tax bill will stop at that rate.

Exclusion requires a further finding

Subsection (b) authorizes exclusion after the president finds that the foreign country maintained or increased the discrimination following issuance of the earlier subsection (a) proclamation. The president must also consider the action consistent with U.S. interests and select the excluded products in keeping with the public interests. The second step is therefore not simply a higher version of the first tariff.

The wording is narrower and more precise than a claim that the president can ban imports whenever another country has a policy the president dislikes. It requires the specified discrimination, an earlier proclamation, and a further finding that the discrimination was maintained or increased.

The statute ties that sequence to issuance of the earlier proclamation, rather than expressly requiring that the government first collect the new duties. An actual measure may have duties already in effect before an exclusion is ordered, but that chronology should not be turned into an extra sentence in the law.

Articles imported contrary to Section 338 are subject to forfeiture to the United States and may be seized under the governing revenue-law procedures. Forfeiture means the goods can be taken by the government; exclusion is not an invitation to pay a penalty and proceed with the same import.

Canada shows the sequence in practice

Canada’s official trade FAQ reports that U.S. Section 338 duties of 50 percent took effect on August 22, 2026 on a range of goods including plastics, furniture, electronics, paper, industrial machinery, wood, textiles, apparel and sports equipment. That is a selected-product tariff, not a statement that every Canadian import faces the same measure. The White House says the September changes removed products such as rock salt and cement from the duty lists and added products including all-terrain vehicles and additional dairy products.

President Donald Trump’s three September 8, 2026 exclusion proclamations share the title wording “Excluding Certain Canadian Products from Importation into the United States in Response to Continued Discrimination Against the Commerce of the United States with Respect to,” followed by “Alcoholic Beverages,” “Dairy” or “Motor Vehicles.” Each proclamation’s annex defines its excluded products, separately from the broader lists of products still facing additional duties.

In the September 8, 2026 alcohol proclamation, the president described an earlier finding that Canada had banned the purchase, distribution or retailing of U.S. alcoholic beverages without similarly restricting products from other countries. The proclamation attributed to senior executive branch officials the assessment that Canadian authorities maintained that discrimination and announced additional retaliation involving American alcohol. Those are the administration’s stated grounds for invoking the law, not a separate finding by GovFacts about the underlying dispute.

The dairy proclamation said Canada maintained the specified discrimination after the earlier proclamation and after its additional duties took effect. It then declared exclusion of the designated Canadian products consistent with the public interests and the interests of the United States. The White House described the measures as protecting American farmers, manufacturers and workers.

The motor-vehicles proclamation excludes its own annex-listed Canadian products imported from the September 29, 2026 cutoff. The three exclusion annexes should therefore be checked separately; the industry named in a discrimination finding is not a universal product ban.

Canada’s Department of Finance gave a different account in its August 25, 2026 announcement: it said Canada negotiated in good faith and suspended talks rather than accept terms it considered harmful to Canadian workers, businesses and sovereignty. It described its response to U.S. tariffs effective August 22 as matching them dollar-for-dollar and rate-for-rate. In that account, countermeasures defend Canadian producers’ ability to compete rather than initiate the conflict.

Canada’s official trade FAQ says its vehicle and alcohol measures responded to U.S. tariffs implemented in 2025, and says its administration of dairy import quotas complies with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Import quotas limit the quantity that can enter on particular terms; the dispute here concerns how Canada administers those terms. The opposing accounts explain why a presidential discrimination finding and the foreign government’s acceptance of that finding are different things.

The import date changes the outcome

The alcohol exclusion took effect for the annex-listed Canadian alcoholic beverages imported on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on September 29, 2026. The annex is the product list attached to the proclamation; the broad label “Canadian alcohol” is not a substitute for checking that list.

Covered goods imported before September 29, 2026 but not yet entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption remain subject to the earlier 50 percent duty. Entry for consumption is the customs step for admitting goods into U.S. commerce; the proclamation distinguishes that step from importation. That distinction can put goods arriving before the cutoff and goods imported after it on opposite sides of the same rule.

Separately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) set September 15, 2026 as the effective date for duty-scope changes applying to goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. A date attached to a duty-list change does not replace the import-date test in an exclusion proclamation.

Canada’s official FAQ reports that qualifying for CUSMA preferential treatment does not exempt goods from the U.S. Section 338 tariffs on Canada. Preferential treatment means the trade agreement’s more favorable import terms; it should not be assumed to settle the separate Section 338 question.

CBP says the importer of record remains responsible for correct entry documentation and all applicable duties, taxes and fees, even when using a customs broker. A customs broker handles the entry work, while the importer of record is the party responsible for that entry. Check the proclamation’s annex and the applicable CBP instructions before treating a product as covered, exempt or prohibited.

Other tariff laws and paths to ending an action

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 addresses imports that the commerce secretary finds threaten to impair national security. Section 301 discretionary action involves the U.S. trade representative determining that an unreasonable or discriminatory foreign practice burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and that U.S. action is appropriate. Similar results at the border do not make those legal tests interchangeable with Section 338’s discrimination-and-proclamation sequence.

Under Section 338, the president shall suspend, revoke, supplement or amend a proclamation whenever the president deems the public interests require it. The conditions for a negotiated settlement are therefore something to check in the specific action and subsequent changes, not an automatic statutory deadline.

Congress holds the constitutional tariff power and determines which authorities it delegates and which limits apply to presidential discretion. The Banning Antiquated Duties and Delivering Equitable American Levies Act, S. 5397, introduced on September 15, 2026 and referred to the Senate Finance Committee, would repeal Section 338 and nullify presidential proclamations issued under it. GovInfo’s bill record listed September 15, 2026 as its last action: introduction and referral to Finance. The bill record was checked on September 30, 2026. That is a proposal, not an enacted repeal; it does not itself end the authority or erase a proclamation.

Under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over specified civil actions against the United States, its agencies or officers arising from tariff laws and non-health import restrictions, including their enforcement. The court’s statutory powers include appropriate relief such as injunctions, subject to specified exceptions. An injunction is a court order that can stop enforcement; obtaining one is a separate step from showing that a lawsuit belongs in that court. For a Section 338 challenge, the central question would be whether the government’s implementation fits Congress’s delegated authority, rather than whether the policy is economically attractive.

The legal question for a particular ban is not exhausted by finding the word “exclusion” in a statute. The findings, earlier proclamation and selected products must connect the government’s action to the authority Congress supplied. That is the difference between identifying a presidential power and establishing that a particular use of it fits the law.