The landscape of tariff imposition by Trump administration is becoming increasingly complex, especially following the USCIT’s judgment blocking Trump’s Worldwide Tariff Order. Notably, USCIT’s judgment has been stayed by the US Court of Appeals, allowing the measure to remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. 

However, as discussed in our previous articles, if the USCIT successfully blocks Trump’s Worldwide Tariff Order, the Trump Administration could, among other options, impose tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (TEA). However, in order to do so, Trump would need to initiate a special investigation, which typically takes several months to complete. The following section will analyze the nature and procedure of this investigation (which is so-called “Section 232 TEA investigation”). 

I. Overview of Section 232 TEA investigation  

A Section 232 TEA investigation is carried out under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (as amended) to assess whether specific imports threaten or impair U.S. national security.  

Prior to the Trump Administration in 2017, the last Section 232 investigation occurred in 2001.[1] Afterwards, between 2017 and 2021, the Trump Administration completed seven Section 232 investigations, covering aluminum, steel, autos and parts, uranium, titanium sponge, transformers, and vanadium.  

From 2021 to 2025, the Biden Administration conducted one Section 232 investigation into neodymium-iron-boron magnets, concurred with Commerce’s finding of a national security threat, and announced actions to strengthen supply chain resilience.  

Then up to May 2025, the second Trump Administration has initiated seven new Section 232 investigations. While some Members of Congress support the President’s use of tariffs as a means to advance economic objectives, others argue that such measures can harm the broader economy and have called for limiting presidential authority over trade policy.[2]

II. Section 232 TEA investigation in comparison with other regular trade investigation 

Section 232 TEA investigation adopts a distinct approach, setting it apart from other trade remedy investigations. This section provides an overview of how Section 232 TEA differs from: (i) Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) investigations, (ii) Safeguards investigations, and (iii) Tariff evasion. 

1. Purpose of investigation 

Section 232 TEA Investigation: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gave the President of US the power to adjust the import of goods or materials if such import is considered to “threaten national security”. This is a broad criterion that can extend beyond traditional economic injury to include critical supply chain vulnerabilities, defense needs, and economic resilience.[3]

Anti-Dumping (AD), Countervailing Duties (CVD), Safeguards, and Tariff Evasion actions all serve as mechanisms to protect domestic industries from harm caused by imports, though they address different types of threats.  

AD and CVD both focus on unfair trade practices as provided under Title 7 of U.S Tariff Law 1930. Specifically, unfair pricing and unfair government support, respectively—that result in or threaten material injury to U.S. industries.  

Safeguards, under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, while not requiring proof of unfairness, also aim to address serious injury but are triggered by unforeseen surges in imports, regardless of whether those imports are fairly traded. 

Tariff Evasion, while more of an enforcement action than a trade remedy, similarly seeks to protect the integrity of trade laws by targeting intentional circumvention of customs duties through deceptive practices like misclassification or undervaluation.  

Comment: The application of Section 232 investigation requires that imports seriously affect the United States, as these imports are not merely examples of unfair trade practices, but are deemed to “threaten national security.” The basis for this claim is much broader and more discretionary than the economic injury tests or the criteria for unfair trade used in other trade enforcement mechanisms. 

In those other mechanisms, the basis can often be identified through market rules or illegal actions. For example, the Anti-dumping, Vietnamese exporters were recently accused of dumping steel reinforcing bars in the U.S. market at a margin of 115.44%. To assess the claim, the DOC generally determines the price of products through conducting the Cohen’s d test, a statistical tool used to measure the magnitude of price differences.[4] As the U.S. considers Vietnam a non-market economy, the DOC will use surrogate data from a third country (for example: Egypt, the similar economic development and comparable producers).[5] Then, the agency compares Vietnam’s export prices with market-based values, which is based on the result of Cohen’s d test, to determine whether there is “anti-dumping” action or not.  

In contrast, under Section 232 TEA, there is nearly no criteria for assessment of “threaten to national security” as this phrase is not defined by any other law. As a result, the finding is interpreted entirely at DOC’s discretion. 

2. Procedure of investigation 

Section 232 TEA Investigation: The investigation is regularly initiated by the Secretary of Commerce (often at the President’s direction). The Secretary of Commerce conducts an “appropriate” investigation, consulting with the Defense Department and other agencies, and then submits a report and recommendations to the President. However, the law provides no specific guidance on what constitutes an “appropriate” investigation. 

AD/CVD Investigations: Typically initiated by a petition from a domestic industry. The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) investigates dumping/subsidies, while the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigates injury. These processes involve detailed questionnaires, data analysis, and opportunities for interested parties to participate.  

Safeguard Investigations: Initiated by a petition from a domestic industry or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on its own initiative. The ITC conducts the investigation, determines if serious injury or threat exists due to increased imports, and recommends remedies to the President, who then decides on the final action.  

Tariff Evasion: Primarily an enforcement activity conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Investigations can be triggered by tips, audits, or intelligence. They involve examining import documentation, supply chains, and potentially conducting field investigations. The process is focused on identifying and penalizing illegal activity. 

Comments: AD/CVD, safeguard, and tariff evasion actions follow structured, rules-based procedures triggered by industry petitions or enforcement needs, with clearly defined legal standards and limited discretion. In contrast, Section 232 investigations could be initiated by the Secretary of Commerce, without requiring any independent injury determination or formal petition and often at the President’s request, focusing on national security rather than economic harm. This investigation is highly discretionary. 

3. Remedies 

Section 232 TEA Investigation: The President has the entire discretion in determining the tariff rate or other import adjustments. This can range from specific ad valorem tariffs (e.g., 25% on steel) to quotas or other restrictions. The rate is often a flat percentage across the board for certain products from specific countries, or even globally, subject to exclusions.  

AD/CVD Investigations: The tariff rate (duty) is calculated based on the “dumping margin” (for AD) or the “net countervailable subsidy rate” (for CVD). These are specific to each foreign producer or exporter found to be dumping or receiving subsidies and aim to offset the unfair trade practice.  

Safeguards: Tariffs applied are generally temporary and aim to provide relief for adjustment. They are typically applied at a most-favored-nation (MFN) rate or a higher rate, and are usually non-discriminatory, applying to imports from all countries unless a specific carve-out is made for certain developing countries.  

Tariff Evasion: The investigation is not about imposing a new tariff, but enforcing the existing, evaded one and punishing the illegal act. 

Comment: AD/CVD, Safeguard, and Tariff Evasion measures all apply tariffs based on defined formulas or enforcement of existing laws. In AD/CVD cases, duties are calculated per exporter based on the dumping margin or subsidy rate, directly tied to the extent of unfair trade. Safeguard tariffs are typically temporary, uniform, and applied at MFN or higher rates to allow domestic industries time to adjust. Tariff Evasion involves no new tariff, but enforces the existing one that was illegally avoided, along with penalties or fines.  

In contrast, Section 232 TEA, again, stands out due to the President’s expansive authority to impose tariffs at any rate, quotas, or other import adjustments deemed necessary to address the national security threat, and may apply globally or selectively, often shaped by national security considerations rather than economic calculations. 

____________________________________________________________

[1] Congressional Research Service (2021), https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45249.pdf, accessed on 10 June 2025.

[2] Congressional Research Service (2021), https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13006/IF13006.1.pdf, accessed on 10 June 2025.

[3] Please kindly refer to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/ensuring-national-security-and-economic-resilience-through-section-232-actions-on-processed-critical-minerals-and-derivative-products/ .

[4] The Cohen’d test is recently challenged to be replaced by the U.S Court since the test did not meet statistical conditions: https://nguoiquansat.vn/sau-10-nam-su-dung-hoa-ky-lan-dau-xem-xet-thay-the-phep-thu-cohen-s-d-trong-dieu-tra-chong-ban-pha-gia-219936.html#:~:text=Ph%C3%A9p%20th%E1%BB%AD-,Cohen%E2%80%99s%20d,-ch%E1%BB%89%20t%E1%BA%ADp%20trung, accessed in 12 June 2025. 

[5] https://nguoiquansat.vn/dam-phan-thue-quan-chua-ket-thuc-mot-mat-hang-cua-viet-nam-nguy-co-bi-my-dieu-tra-voi-cao-buoc-ban-pha-gia-115-223905.html, accessed on 12 June 2025.

____________________________________________________________

About VCI Legal: 

VCI Legal is an award-winning business law firm in Vietnam with a wide range of legal and corporate services, among other things, corporate, banking & finance, tax, labor & HR, real estate and dispute resolution with special focus on international investment disputes, We also offer our specialized type of service called “In-House Counsel Service” with the aim of assisting our clients in dealing with all types of internal and external issues arising from their day-to-day operations and business activities. With our offices in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, we have a tremendous depth of experience in providing well-reasoned and comprehensive legal advice to not only multinationals and Fortune 500 companies, but also small and medium enterprises.

Our professional team comprises one of the leading law firms in Vietnam with service quality highly recommended and acknowledged by international legal service reviewers such as: The Legal 500, AsiaLaw Profiles, IFLR, KPMG’s Tax Directors’ Handbook, Acquisition International, ACQ Global, Global Law Experts, Finance Monthly, and Chambers & Partners.

For many years, VCI Legal has been ranked among the top law firms in Vietnam for corporate, finance, insurance, taxation, employment, intellectual property and investment. With a “Can Do Attitude” combined with a “Know How” capacity, our firm is big enough to provide comprehensive legal support for any in-house legal matters, yet small enough to care about each of our clients. We undertake each engagement with the mindset of a long-term relationship, with the will to give whatever it takes to understand and fulfill your needs.

Ho Chi Minh City  

Suite P7-42.18, Vinhomes Central Park, 720A Dien Bien Phu, Binh Thanh Dist., Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam  

Tel.: (+84) 028 3827 2029  Fax: (+84) 028 3823 4436 

Hanoi  

Suite 1903, Floor 19, W1 Tower, Vinhomes Westpoint, Pham Hung, Nam Tu Liem Dist., Hanoi City, Vietnam  

Tel.: (+84) 024 3936 4985 – (+84) 024 3936 4987 

 Affiliated Offices: Beijing – Shanghai – Hanoi – Ho Chi Minh City – Singapore – New Delhi – Dubai – Doha – Zurich Paris – Rome – Brescia – Washington D.C. – Los Angeles