According to relevant authorities, the U.S. Federal International Trade Court ruled on May 7 (local time) in favor of plaintiffs, including Washington state and some importers, against the 10% global tariff imposed on all trading partners under Section 122 of the Trade Act. The court did not expand the ruling's scope to include other states or all companies.
Previously, the Trump administration had imposed the global tariff in February after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that reciprocal tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalid. The global tariff was enacted under Section 122, which grants the president the authority to impose tariffs for up to 150 days to address severe trade deficits.
With the court's intervention on both reciprocal tariffs and global tariffs, speculation arises about changes in U.S. trade policy. However, the prevailing view is that the framework of the tariff negotiations with South Korea and related investments will remain largely unchanged.
Section 122 of U.S. trade law originally allowed the president to impose emergency tariffs, but its application period is limited and set to expire in July, raising questions about the sustainability of such policies. It is seen as a temporary measure in the process of restoring the tariff system.
In response, the Trump administration has sought to restore the tariff system using Sections 301 and 232 of the Trade Act. The U.S. is already conducting investigations under Section 301 against South Korea and others, citing unfair trade practices related to overproduction in the manufacturing sector and goods produced through forced labor.
While the tariff imposition system is changing, it is likely that the overall framework of negotiations between South Korea and the U.S. will not be significantly affected. Therefore, current government investment projects in the U.S. are expected to remain largely unaffected. The ongoing negotiations led by Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan during his visit to the U.S. may also experience limited impact.
The government has stated it will monitor the situation closely. A spokesperson from the Blue House noted, "The ruling's effect appears to be limited to some plaintiffs, and the government plans to respond calmly while continuing to ensure a balance of benefits under our existing tariff agreements."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.