The Office of the United States Trade Representative has confirmed that the two Section 301 tariff actions against China taken in 2018 did not expire on their four-year anniversaries and will stay in force. The notice, published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, removes the last procedural route by which the China tariff wall could have lapsed on its own this year.
It lands 33 days before a separate and much harder deadline. The 178 product exclusions that currently shield a narrow band of Chinese imports from the 25 percent Section 301 duty are scheduled to expire at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on November 9, 2026, and no extension notice has been published.
In short
- The tariffs did not lapse. USTR confirmed on October 7 that the July 6, 2018 and August 23, 2018 Section 301 actions did not terminate on their four-year anniversaries and remain in effect.
- Domestic industry asked for it. USTR received 68 producer requests and 18 trade association requests to continue the July action, plus 57 producer and 19 association requests for the August action.
- 178 exclusions expire November 9. That covers 164 product-specific exclusions under HTSUS 9903.88.69 and 14 solar manufacturing equipment exclusions under 9903.88.70.
- A second four-year review now begins. USTR says it will publish a separate notice inviting comment on the effectiveness of the actions and their effects on the US economy, including consumers.
- November 9 is a cluster, not a single date. The exclusion expiry, the suspension of Section 301 maritime port fees and a new USTR comment deadline on the EU carbon border mechanism all fall on the same day.
What USTR actually decided on October 7
The notice is short and procedural, which is part of why it has attracted little general coverage. Filed on October 6 and published the following morning at 91 FR 64212, it is signed by Jennifer Thornton, General Counsel at USTR, and carries the document number 2026-20510.
Its substance is a negative finding. Under Section 307(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, codified at 19 U.S.C. 2417(c)(1)(B), a Section 301 action terminates automatically on its four-year anniversary unless a representative of a domestic industry that benefits from the action files a written request for continuation during the preceding 60 days. USTR received those requests, so the actions did not terminate.
The two actions in question are the original China tariff rounds. The first took effect July 6, 2018 and the second on August 23, 2018. Everything layered on top since then, including the much larger September 2018 and September 2019 rounds, sits in the statutory framework as modifications of those two actions rather than as free-standing measures.
That structure is why a procedural notice about two 2018 decisions governs the status of tariffs that now reach across most Chinese consumer goods sold into the United States. If the underlying actions had terminated, the modifications would have had no parent action to attach to.
The request counts tell you who is defending the wall
USTR disclosed the volume of continuation requests for each action. For the July 6, 2018 action, 68 domestic producers and 18 trade associations filed. For the August 23, 2018 action, 57 producers and 19 associations filed.
The agency summarized the arguments rather than naming filers. Requesters reported that the actions still give Beijing an incentive to change the technology transfer and intellectual property practices that triggered the original investigation. They also said the tariffs had allowed them to compete against Chinese imports, encouraged domestic investment in new technologies, supported expansion of domestic production and assisted reshoring.
Those are the statutory magic words. Section 307(c) does not require USTR to weigh the requests against importer harm at this stage. A single qualifying request would have been enough to stop termination, and USTR received more than 160 across both actions.
The process started with a May 6, 2026 notice at 91 FR 24636, which told domestic industries that the actions faced possible termination and opened the request windows. Representatives of industries benefiting from the July 2018 action could file between May 7 and July 5, 2026. Those tied to the August 2018 action had from June 24 to August 22, 2026.
USTR then took roughly six weeks after the second window closed to publish the continuation finding. The gap matters for anyone trying to time the next notice: this agency is not publishing on the day a window shuts.
Published the same day as the continuation, a second notice numbered 2026-20511 makes a conforming amendment to an additional product exclusion. Its cause is mundane: the US International Trade Commission implemented changes to HTSUS statistical reporting categories effective July 1, 2026, and the exclusion text needed to be realigned with the new categories.
The amendment applies to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 2026, and CBP will issue entry guidance and implementation instructions. It follows a similar batch of conforming amendments published on September 2, 2026.
The signal here is subtle but real. USTR is still actively maintaining the exclusion text 33 days before the exclusions are scheduled to lapse, which is not the behavior of an agency that has written them off. It is also not an extension, and nothing in either notice should be read as one.
Importers should also note the asymmetry in effective dates. A conforming amendment backdated to July 1 can change how an exclusion is claimed on entries already filed, which is a reconciliation question for brokers rather than a forward pricing question.
Why the four-year review matters more than the headline
The continuation is the uninteresting half of the notice. The consequential half is Section C, which confirms that USTR will now conduct the second statutory four-year review of both actions under Section 307(c)(3).
USTR says it will publish a separate notice or notices describing that review process. The process will invite interested persons to comment on the effectiveness of the actions in achieving the objectives of the original investigation, on other actions that could be taken, and on the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.
That last clause is the opening that importers, retailers and marketplace platforms have been waiting for. The first four-year review, which ran from 2022 and concluded in May 2024, did not end the tariffs. It raised them on targeted strategic sectors while leaving the consumer goods lists largely untouched.
The final stage of those 2024 increases took effect on January 1, 2026, lifting Section 301 duties to 25 percent on natural graphite, permanent magnets and certain lithium-ion batteries, to 50 percent on textile respirators and face masks, and to 100 percent on rubber medical and surgical gloves, according to trade counsel summaries of the USTR schedule.
A second review creates the same two-sided risk. It is the formal venue in which relief could be granted on consumer categories, and it is equally the venue in which new strategic sectors can be moved up. Anyone sourcing from China who does not file in that docket will have no record on which to argue later.
What expires on November 9 and what it costs
The 178 exclusions now in force were extended by a USTR notice published in late November 2025, which moved their expiry from November 29, 2025 to 11:59 p.m. Eastern on November 9, 2026. They split into two groups.
The larger group is 164 product-specific exclusions claimed under HTSUS subheading 9903.88.69. The smaller group is 14 exclusions for solar manufacturing equipment, claimed under 9903.88.70. Both are claimed at entry by the importer of record, and both carry the full 25 percent List 1 to List 3 duty if they lapse.
The mechanics of a lapse are unforgiving. There is no phase-in and no grace period. Goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 10 are dutiable at the full rate even if the purchase order, the sailing and the arrival all predate the deadline. The entry date governs.
| Section 301 tranche | Effective date | Headline rate in 2026 | Status after October 7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| List 1 (July 6, 2018 action) | July 6, 2018 | 25 percent | Continued, under second four-year review |
| List 2 (August 23, 2018 action) | August 23, 2018 | 25 percent | Continued, under second four-year review |
| List 3 (modification) | September 2018 | 25 percent | Attached to continued actions |
| List 4A (modification) | September 2019 | 7.5 percent | Attached to continued actions |
| 2024 review increases, final stage | January 1, 2026 | 25 to 100 percent by product | In force |
The practical exposure depends on where a given SKU sits. For an importer whose goods are on List 4A at 7.5 percent, an exclusion lapse is not the event to worry about, because the exclusions attach to the 25 percent tranches. For an importer holding an exclusion on a List 1 or List 3 line, November 10 is a 25 point margin event on landed cost.
Why nobody can price the risk precisely
USTR has not published aggregate trade value for the current 178 exclusions, and the agency has never published a per-exclusion import figure. The honest answer for most importers is that the exposure is knowable only from their own entry summaries.
That is a practical point rather than a rhetorical one. Customs brokers can pull a client’s ACE entry history and filter for lines claimed under 9903.88.69 and 9903.88.70. Any importer that cannot produce that report inside a week has a visibility problem independent of the tariff.
Which product lines sit inside the 178 exclusions
The exclusions that survived the successive rounds of culling are not a cross-section of Chinese imports. They are the residue of a process that has repeatedly favored capital equipment and inputs with no credible non-Chinese source over finished consumer goods.
The solar manufacturing equipment carve-out under 9903.88.70 is the clearest example. Those 14 exclusions exist because the equipment used to build domestic solar capacity is itself overwhelmingly Chinese, and taxing it would have worked against the industrial policy the tariffs are meant to support.
Retailers reading this should be careful not to assume the exclusions are shielding their assortment. Most general merchandise, apparel, footwear, toys and home goods from China have been dutiable at the full Section 301 rate for years, with no exclusion available.
The exposure for retail runs through components and equipment rather than through finished goods. A retailer operating its own fulfillment network, its own refrigeration or its own in-store manufacturing may hold exclusions on machinery lines without ever having thought of itself as a tariff-exposed importer.
The exclusion question also sits apart from the negotiated tariff reductions that have moved separately this autumn. Washington has published a list of 77 Chinese goods lined up for tariff cuts in which toys and home categories feature prominently, and that track is political rather than procedural.
Those two processes can move in opposite directions on the same week. A negotiated reduction on a consumer category does nothing for an importer whose exclusion on an industrial input lapses on November 10.
How the exclusion cliff fits the rest of the November 9 calendar
November 9, 2026 has quietly become the most crowded date on the US trade calendar. Four separate instruments mature on or around it, and they are not coordinated with each other.
| Instrument | Deadline | What happens by default | Who it hits |
|---|---|---|---|
| 178 Section 301 product exclusions | 11:59 p.m. ET, November 9, 2026 | Full 25 percent duty resumes on covered lines | Importers of record claiming 9903.88.69 or 9903.88.70 |
| Section 301 maritime port fee suspension | 11:59 p.m. ET, November 9, 2026 | Fees on Chinese-linked vessels become applicable again | Carriers, then shippers via surcharges |
| USTR comment deadline on the EU carbon border mechanism | November 9, 2026 | Comment window closes, docket USTR-2026-0661 | US exporters to the EU |
| Second Section 301 four-year review | Notice pending | Comment process opens at a date USTR has not set | All China-exposed importers |
The maritime piece is the one with the clearest retail pass-through. The port fees on Chinese-linked vessels were suspended under a USTR Federal Register notice through the same November 9 cut-off, and would become applicable again from November 10 at a rate reported at 80 dollars per net ton unless USTR issues a new modification.
More than 200 trade associations, including the National Retail Federation, wrote to Ambassador Jamieson Greer on September 23, 2026 asking for that suspension to be extended. The complication is administrative rather than diplomatic: the Busan understanding between Washington and Beijing was extended into January 2027, but under US administrative law only a new USTR notice can extend the fee suspension, and none had been published as of this week.
The third item is new. USTR published a request for comments on the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on October 8, 2026, under docket USTR-2026-0661, with comments due November 9. CBAM entered full implementation on January 1, 2026 and currently covers aluminum, cement, electricity, fertilizer, hydrogen, and iron and steel, with the EU considering an expansion to downstream steel-intensive and aluminum-intensive products.
That expansion is the part that eventually reaches retail. Downstream steel-intensive and aluminum-intensive goods is a category that includes appliances, furniture frames, fixtures and packaging, and a US importer selling into the EU would carry the compliance cost.
Why Section 301 became the load-bearing tariff authority
Eight months ago, the Section 301 program was one of several tariff tracks. Today it is close to the only durable one, and that is the context in which the October 7 continuation should be read.
The Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the President authority to impose tariffs. The decision was 6 to 3, and the majority reasoned that the power to regulate importation does not extend to revenue-raising duties, which the Constitution’s Taxing Clause assigns to Congress.
Law firm analyses published immediately after the ruling were consistent on one point: the decision has no effect on tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 or under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The IEEPA tariffs themselves had already been rescinded as of February 7, 2026, and the Court of International Trade subsequently held that importers who paid them are entitled to refunds, not only the companies that filed suit.
That refund stream is the live operational consequence. US Customs and Border Protection has been building the Centralized Automated Processing Environment to handle the claims, and CBP’s CAPE Phase 3 refund system opened on October 6, 2026, two days before this notice published.
The sequencing is awkward for importers. The same agency week delivered a mechanism to reclaim duties that were ruled unlawful and a confirmation that a separate, lawful tariff program will continue indefinitely. Finance teams treating the refund as a windfall should note that it does not offset a November 10 exclusion lapse.
The China technology transfer case is also no longer the only Section 301 file. USTR has opened a parallel Section 301 track aimed at 16 economies over failures to impose their own measures, a design that spreads the same statutory tool across a much wider set of sourcing countries.
For a sourcing team, that undercuts the simplest China-plus-one hedge. Moving a line to a third country does not move it outside Section 301 if that country is itself under investigation.
What importers and retailers should do before November 9
The window is now short enough that the useful actions are operational rather than strategic. Four of them are worth running in parallel.
Pull the exclusion exposure report
The first step is a filtered entry history. Any line claimed under 9903.88.69 or 9903.88.70 in the trailing 12 months is in scope, and the report should show units, value and the underlying eight-digit or ten-digit HTSUS classification rather than just the special provision.
That classification matters because the snap-back rate is set by the underlying list, not by the exclusion. Two lines sharing the same exclusion can land on different rates.
Decide whether to pull entries forward
Entries filed and goods released before the cut-off keep the exclusion. For freight already on the water with an early November arrival, the question is whether the entry can be filed on arrival rather than deferred, and whether any bonded warehouse inventory should be withdrawn for consumption before the deadline rather than after.
Both moves carry a working capital cost and neither is free. They are worth modelling against a 25 point duty increase, which usually dominates the carrying cost.
Rebuild landed cost on the assumption of no extension
Planning on an extension is a position, not a forecast. USTR opened a public comment window roughly two months before the last extension decision, and no comparable window has opened for the November 2026 expiry.
The disciplined approach is to reprice on snap-back assumptions and treat any extension as upside. Merchandising teams setting spring assortments are already past the point where a late reversal can be absorbed cleanly.
Check the rest of the customs calendar
The exclusion cliff is not happening in isolation. The merchandise processing fee minimum and maximum moved on October 1, 2026 to 34.58 dollars and 670.86 dollars respectively, and the October 22 postal entry cutover removes the delayed-compliance grace period for mail shipments carrying partner government agency or Chapter 98 and 99 requirements.
Each of these is individually small. Together they represent a compliance load arriving inside a six-week window that overlaps peak season.
What the second four-year review could change in 2027
The review announced in Section C of the notice is the first real opportunity since 2024 to argue for structural change in the China tariff schedule, and the docket has not opened yet.
USTR’s statutory mandate for that review is broader than the exclusion process. It covers whether the actions have been effective in achieving the objectives of the investigation, what other actions could be taken, and the effects of those actions on the US economy including consumers. An exclusion request, by contrast, is a narrow product-level argument about sourcing availability.
Three realistic outcomes are worth planning around. The review could leave the lists as they are and simply reaffirm them, as the continuation finding already did. It could repeat the 2024 pattern and raise rates on newly identified strategic sectors while leaving consumer categories alone. Or it could open a structured exclusion process tied to the review, which is what happened with the machinery exclusion process announced in the first review.
| Review scenario | Precedent | Likely retail effect | Planning response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reaffirm existing lists | October 7, 2026 continuation | No change to landed cost | Hold current sourcing plan |
| Targeted rate increases | May 2024 review outcome | Narrow categories reprice sharply | Map exposure by strategic sector |
| New structured exclusion process | 2024 machinery exclusion process | Relief for equipment and inputs only | Prepare product-level filings early |
| Negotiated reductions on consumer lines | The 77-goods tariff cut track | Direct margin relief in toys and home | Treat as upside, not base case |
The one thing the review will not do quickly is resolve anything before November 9. USTR has not published the process notice, and the first review took roughly two years from initiation to final determination.
The wider trade picture heading into peak season
The continuation lands against import volumes that have been unusually strong. The US trade deficit widened to 105.6 billion dollars in August 2026, the widest reading since early 2025, with imports up 4.3 percent on the month, according to figures reported by CNBC from the Commerce Department release on October 6.
Analysts attributed much of that to artificial intelligence infrastructure buying rather than to consumer goods restocking, which means the headline number overstates how much retail inventory is being pulled forward. Tariffs now apply to roughly 54 percent of US goods imports in 2026, on the Tax Foundation’s estimate.
The policy environment around those flows has also stopped being a purely American story. Washington is simultaneously running a USMCA joint review comment process ahead of 2027, a CBAM consultation aimed at Brussels, and litigation over forced-labor tariff authority, with the Court of International Trade’s forced-labor tariff case awaiting a decision after oral argument.
For retail sourcing teams, the common thread is that the legal basis of each tariff now determines its durability. IEEPA tariffs collapsed in February. Section 301 tariffs were tested by statute this autumn and survived. That distinction is the one worth building a sourcing plan around.
What to watch next
Three documents will settle most of the open questions, and all three would appear in the Federal Register rather than in a press release.
The first is any USTR notice extending or modifying the 178 exclusions. Based on the 2025 pattern, an extension would normally be preceded by a public comment request; the absence of one this year is the strongest available signal that the default outcome is a lapse.
The second is a USTR notice on the Section 301 maritime fees. Without it, the fee suspension ends on the same night as the exclusions, and carriers would be expected to surface the cost as a surcharge well before the first affected port call.
The third is the process notice for the second four-year review. That notice will set the comment deadlines that determine whether an importer has standing to argue its case in 2027, and it is the one document on this list that most companies can actually influence.
The official text of the continuation notice is available from the Federal Register, which publishes the full statutory reasoning alongside the request counts. Importers planning entry strategy should read Section C rather than the summary.
Federal Register: Continuation of Actions, FR Doc 2026-20510
Frequently asked questions
Did the China Section 301 tariffs expire in 2026?
No. USTR confirmed in a notice published on October 7, 2026 that the July 6, 2018 and August 23, 2018 actions did not terminate on their four-year anniversary dates and remain in effect, subject to possible further modification.
What exactly happens at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on November 9, 2026?
The 178 product exclusions currently in force are scheduled to expire. Goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 10 would be dutiable at the full Section 301 rate for their underlying list unless USTR publishes an extension.
How many exclusions are there and where are they claimed?
There are 178 in total: 164 product-specific exclusions claimed under HTSUS subheading 9903.88.69, and 14 solar manufacturing equipment exclusions claimed under 9903.88.70.
Is an extension still possible?
It is possible but there is no published signal pointing to one. USTR opened a public comment window roughly two months before the previous extension decision in 2025, and no equivalent window has been opened for the November 2026 expiry as of October 8, 2026.
Does the Supreme Court tariff ruling affect Section 301?
No. The February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs. Law firm analyses published after the ruling were consistent that it leaves Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs untouched.
What is the second four-year review and when does it start?
It is the statutory review required by Section 307(c)(3) of the Trade Act once an action is continued. USTR has said it will publish a separate notice describing the process, inviting comment on effectiveness, alternative actions and economic effects including on consumers. No date for that notice has been announced.
Which retailers are most exposed to the exclusion lapse?
Not the ones with the largest Chinese finished-goods assortments, since most general merchandise has carried full Section 301 duty for years. The exposure concentrates in companies importing capital equipment, machinery and industrial inputs that hold exclusions, including retailers running their own fulfillment or in-store production equipment.
What are the Section 301 port fees that expire on the same date?
They are fees on Chinese-linked vessels calling at US ports, suspended under a separate USTR Section 301 maritime action through the same November 9, 2026 cut-off. More than 200 trade associations, including the National Retail Federation, asked USTR in September to extend the suspension.
What should an importer do first?
Pull a filtered entry history for lines claimed under 9903.88.69 and 9903.88.70 over the trailing 12 months, with units, value and the underlying HTSUS classification. Without that report, no decision about pulling entries forward or repricing can be made with confidence.