The Section 338 Canada tariffs took effect in August. The product lists changed in September. On October 20, 2026, the dispute reached the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Gellert Global Group Corp., a U.S. food importer represented by the Liberty Justice Center, filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s authority to impose the duties. The company is seeking class action status, an order stopping collection and refunds with applicable interest.
The case asks whether Section 338 authorizes these tariffs—and whether the administration followed the statute’s limits.
What are the Section 338 Canada tariffs?
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1338, addresses foreign discrimination against U.S. commerce.
The statute provides for additional duties of up to 50% to offset specified commercial disadvantages. It also permits import exclusions under additional conditions and includes a 30-day waiting period for collecting proclaimed additional duties.
The administration announced additional 50% duties on specified Canadian products on July 20, 2026. Following a three-day suspension of the original start date, collection began August 22.
On September 8, the administration changed the product lists. Additions and removals took effect September 15, while separate import bans took effect September 29.
Gellert imports Canadian cheeses added to the tariff lists in September. Its lawsuit challenges both the legal basis for the measures and the timing of collection on newly listed products.
Why Gellert is challenging the tariffs
Gellert’s complaint advances five principal arguments.
First, later legislation displaced or limits the older law. The company argues that Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 superseded Section 338 or controls its use for the practices at issue.
Second, the discrimination requirement was not satisfied. Gellert disputes whether the Canadian measures cited by the administration meet the statute’s requirements. It also challenges whether the 50% rate reflects the burden on U.S. commerce.
Third, collection began too soon for newly added products. The complaint says products added on September 8 became subject to collection on September 15—only seven days later.
Fourth, the claimed tariff power requires clearer congressional authorization. Gellert raises the major questions doctrine, arguing that an action of this scope requires a clear grant of authority from Congress.
Fifth, the government’s interpretation gives the president excessive discretion. The company alternatively argues that reading Section 338 this broadly would violate constitutional limits on delegating legislative power.
These are the plaintiff’s allegations and legal arguments. They are not findings that the challenged tariffs are unlawful.
Who could be included in the proposed class action?
The proposed class covers importers of record that paid or must pay the challenged Section 338 duties on covered consumption entries or warehouse withdrawals beginning August 22, 2026.
The complaint also proposes a narrower subclass for products first added through Proclamations 11064 or 11065, entered or withdrawn from September 15 through October 7.
That subclass focuses on the alleged waiting-period violation. It seeks refunds tied to the collection timetable, separately from the broader challenge to the tariff measures.
Class certification and refunds remain requested relief. The filing does not automatically establish either one.
How the Section 338 Canada tariffs interact with USMCA
The White House’s September 8 fact sheet states that covered goods face Section 338 duties regardless of whether they qualify as originating under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, or USMCA.
The fact sheet also states that the duties apply in addition to relevant Section 232 tariffs.
The measures cover listed products rather than every Canadian import. Product coverage and the applicable entry dates therefore remain important when reviewing their effect on an import operation.
What the lawsuit changes for importers
The case, Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-04636, places the Section 338 Canada tariffs before the Court of International Trade.
Filing the lawsuit does not itself suspend CBP’s collection instructions, certify the proposed class or authorize refunds.
The next developments include the court’s handling of the requested injunction and class certification, along with the government’s response.
For affected importers, the distinction is straightforward: a court challenge has been filed, but the relief requested still requires court action.
Questions about your import operation?
TradeFlex supports businesses with customs brokerage, trade compliance and import documentation.
Contact TradeFlex to discuss your customs entries, tariff exposure and supporting records.
