A US food importer has brought a new challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariff powers - and Canadian goods are at the centre of the dispute.
Gellert Global Group filed a proposed class action in the US Court of International Trade on October 20, challenging additional 50% duties imposed on specified Canadian products under section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The case is Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-04636. Liberty Justice Center: case announcement.
The limits of section 338
The legal issue is whether the administration’s use of that provision falls within the authority Congress granted.
Gellert advances several arguments. It says later trade legislation displaced or constrained section 338, that the challenged measures exceed the provision’s requirements, and that the duties do not lawfully offset the alleged Canadian discrimination. It seeks class certification, injunctive relief and refunds with interest. These are arguments in a complaint; no court has ruled on them. Liberty Justice Center: case announcement.
The White House maintains that section 338 authorizes the measures and intends to defend them. AP: challenge and White House response.
The statutory basis matters
For Canadian trade counsel, the case highlights why the statutory basis of a tariff matters as much as its rate. Different sources of authority bring different conditions, procedures and potential grounds of challenge.
A judgment about one tariff power does not automatically resolve a measure imposed under another. Nor does filing a lawsuit suspend collection or establish that every affected importer will receive a refund.
The proposed class action adds another procedural question: whether the court will permit Gellert to represent other importers. Businesses should distinguish that request from an order actually certifying a class.
Records, collection and commercial contracts
The immediate practical work remains identifying the affected products, the relevant import entries and the legal basis under which duties were collected. Those records may become important as the litigation develops.
For commercial agreements, counsel should also examine how tariff costs have been allocated. A successful statutory challenge would not necessarily answer every contractual dispute between suppliers, importers and customers.
The case now puts the administration’s interpretation of section 338 before a specialist trade court.
The tariff rate is the commercial headline. The limits of delegated authority will drive the legal fight.
Related coverage: U.S. Russia Sanctions Waiver Has No Automatic 60-Day Expiry.
Sources: Filed complaint: Gellert v. Trump · Liberty Justice Center: case announcement · AP: challenge and White House response .