US high-tariff stance here to stay, KITA urges exporters to rethink strategy

As US tariff measures grow more complex across countries and product categories, the operational burden on South Korean exporters is mounting. Companies now face the simultaneous challenge of tracking Section 301 forced-labor trade measures, Section 232 product-specific tariffs on steel and aluminum, and tariff refund procedures.

The Korea International Trade Association held a briefing on US tariff measure changes and tariff refunds at COEX in Samseong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on Wednesday. About 150 representatives from export companies attended.

The event was organized to share with businesses the details of forced-labor-related Section 301 measures announced by the Office of the United States Trade Representative on Thursday, along with major changes to tariff regimes and the latest trends in domestic tariff refund processing.

The United States has increasingly combined country-specific tariff measures with regulations targeting particular industries, supply chains and forced-labor concerns. Exporters can no longer focus solely on tariff rates — they must also examine country of origin, supply chain documentation, product classification and refund eligibility.

The briefing was divided into three sessions. The first covered Section 301 tariff measures and corporate response strategies. The second introduced trends in IEEPA tariff refunds and litigation related to Section 122 of the Trade Act. The third reviewed changes to Section 232 product-specific tariffs under the Trade Expansion Act and the practical compliance points companies need to watch.

Jo Seong-dae, head of the trade policy research division at KITA, said that even if Section 122 tariffs are lifted, the United States' high-tariff stance is unlikely to ease anytime soon.

"Despite questions about the legal basis for these measures, the United States will continue to maintain country-differentiated tariffs through Section 301 and product-specific tariffs through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act," Jo said. "Companies must take a comprehensive view — including the forthcoming Section 301 overproduction measures — when formulating their management and export strategies."

The briefing also covered practical guidance on tariff refunds. Kim Tae-ju, a managing director at Samjong KPMG, outlined the current status of IEEPA reciprocal tariff refunds and litigation trends related to Section 122. With refund processing in the United States now operational, companies should actively explore their refund options, he said.

"US Customs and Border Protection launched its refund processing system in April, removing uncertainty and enabling actual refunds to be paid out," Kim said. "Since the specific procedures vary by company and circumstance, businesses should work with tariff specialists to make the most of refund opportunities."

The overhaul of product-specific tariffs was another key topic. Shim Jong-seon, a partner at Deloitte Anjin, explained enforcement trends for Section 232 product-specific tariffs and outlined changes affecting steel, aluminum and copper.

The shift from taxing only the value of specific material content to taxing the total product value was flagged as a critical point for companies exporting affected goods. Even when a product contains only a small amount of a targeted raw material, the change in how the tax is calculated can significantly alter the actual burden.

"CBP is stepping up enforcement of forced-labor import restrictions and cracking down on trade fraud to strengthen the effectiveness of these measures, making thorough supply chain management essential," Shim said.

KITA said domestic companies must keep a close watch on changes to tariff regimes and refund procedures as US trade measures continue to shift. It stressed the need to manage product-specific impacts, supply chain structures and US customs clearance risks together, in preparation for a prolonged high-tariff environment.