Some of my 2022 Bordeaux’s are held up hoping these things expire is my understanding. I imagine there’s quite a few overseas buyers all in the same bucket.
Yes, I have 4 pallets in bond onshore right now with that hope.
I’d like to organize a blind tasting of Ontario Baco Noir and Okanagan Marechal Foch, but I don’t know enough masochists.
Me!
10% “forced labor” section 301 tariff on the EU (among other places) to go into effect immediately as the existing tariffs expire on Friday.
2 Likes
Forced labor in the EU? I had no idea that the Bulgarians were enslaving all of their Danish guest workers!
It’s complicated, and the EU has a law they are implementing, but it does not go into full effect until the end of next year. That’s the opening for the tariffs.
As far as the legal battle, there were two cases that found the Section 122 tariffs unlawful, both appealed to the Federal Circuit (the appeals court for these things). The litigation is still playing out, the initial brief by the government is due tomorrow (they were granted a 14 day extension). So, far from being decided.
As far as replacements, I think David answered that question. The 10% (or 12.5% for some countries) tariffs are likely pretextual, but the courts tend to defer to the executive branch on those determinations.
-Al
-Al
Al,
Kudos to you for continuing to provide context/insight to the legal ongoings re tariffs.
Much appreciated.
1 Like
Forgot to mention that the Tariff Act of 1930 is otherwise known as the Smoot Hawley Act and is pretty widely considered a disaster as far as public policy.
-Al
2 Likes
Sounds like a lot of wine. I’m here on standby when you’re in need of a first mate 
1 Like
Perfect clip!!
Really need someone to do an AI version with admin officials falling asleep during the lecture.
Joking aside (I had the same reaction) its failure to prevent import of goods made with forced labor from third countries. Theory being if input costs are lower EU can produce goods at lower cost than they should. Not that the U.S. is innocent on this.
No surprise, I suppose, but there are legal issues with the new proposed tariffs on Canada. Section 338 of the Smoot Hawley Act is defunct because it was superseded by later legislation (twice).
https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/trump-imposes-new-illegal-tariffs-on-canada/
-Al
Yeah. We have the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, but that’s very targeted.
1 Like
Whether defunct or not, why doesn’t USMCA preclude its use? USMCA is also law (and a treaty) that was passed/approved by Congress and signed by the President and, as I understand it, would prohibit these tariffs (at least without going through the USMCA procedure).
2 Likes
It does prevent them. When has that mattered?
1 Like
Fair - I’m thinking more in basis for legal challenge. The 301 tariffs are pretty well established in law, so long as the procedure is followed . . . though there’s an argument that there’s insufficient basis for a finding re forced labor. But that’s a harder question for a court.
These seem blatantly inconsistent with the law set by USMCA.