The Court of International Trade in New York on Wednesday heard a two-and-a-half-hour challenge to the 10-12.5 percent duties the Trump administration imposed on imports from 60 US trading partners, a case that could unsettle tariff planning for apparel and soft goods importers across China, Vietnam, the EU, the UK, Canada and Mexico.

The duties took effect July 24. They followed an Office of the US Trade Representative investigation launched under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which alleged that dozens of economies failed to impose or adequately enforce bans on imports made with forced labor.

Counsel for four small businesses and 25 states argued that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority. Pratik Shah, attorney for two of the plaintiff businesses, said the president had colored far outside the lines of his "carefully constrained" power under Section 301.

Such investigations usually target individual economies rather than blanketing dozens with the same justification. Shah argued the administration's need for speed — its global Section 122 duties expired in July — superseded its ability to meet the legal requirements for new tariffs.

"If you're going to do it at breakneck speed and try to cover the entire globe, you still have to satisfy the statutory requirements," Shah said, according to Reuters.

The three-judge panel pressed both sides with skeptical questions. CNBC reported that one justice asked Shah "So what?" when he suggested the government was pursuing objectives beyond righting forced labor wrongs through its tariff scheme.

Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have in recent months cast Section 301 as the tool to rebuild the administration's tariff strategy after legal setbacks, most notably at the Supreme Court.

For the government, Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton of the Federal Programs Branch argued USTR did its due diligence in evaluating the countries in question. He said USTR's burden of proof was not "metaphysical certainty" that forced labor burdens US commerce, and that the evidence collected satisfied Section 301's requirements. He conceded there was "a common basis for the determinations" across all 60 economies, though he insisted each was investigated individually.

The judges said they plan to rule as speedily as possible, but the timeline remains unclear — weeks or months are both plausible.

The hearing comes as USTR continues to delay results of a second Section 301 probe launched around the same time. In March, USTR announced an investigation of 16 global economies over allegations of industrial excess capacity, asserting that surplus cheap goods flood the US market and undercut domestic producers.

Josh Teitelbaum, trade and policy expert and senior counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, addressed the delay at Sourcing Journal's annual Sourcing Summit on Tuesday. "Writing that report is a far more complex task than the forced labor report, which was essentially an on-off switch; does another country have a forced labor ban on the goods it's imported into their country or not? Yes or no," he said. "Excess capacity is a totally new concept the USTR is dealing with, and so you got to flesh this out and create a far more individualized analysis for each country."

At some point, Teitelbaum said, "the political considerations took over." Tariffs raise retail prices, and consumers vote in November. "Is the president going to put on a 7.5-10 percent tariff four weeks before the midterm elections? I guess we'll find out in four weeks," he said.

For sourcing directors, the ruling will determine whether the 10-12.5 percent duty layer on goods from 60 countries survives on forced labor grounds or collapses alongside earlier tariff authorities. Importers should hold off on locking in long-term pricing with suppliers in targeted markets until the court rules, while continuing to document forced labor due diligence at the factory tier — the compliance record USTR claims to have relied on will remain relevant regardless of the outcome.