Safeguard Measures: Emergency Trade Remedies and Import Restrictions

Under U.S. Law, specifically Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, safeguard actions are designed to provide breathing room for an industry to undergo a "positive adjustment." This is a clinical process where the government assesses whether the domestic industry can become competitive again after a period of relief. As of early 2026, the focus has shifted toward technological sovereignty, with safeguards increasingly targeting the clean energy and semiconductor ecosystems.

While Anti-dumping and Countervailing duties address "unfair" trade (price discrimination and subsidies), safeguard measures are applied regardless of the country of origin. This "global" application makes them uniquely disruptive, as they cannot be avoided simply by shifting sourcing between trade partners.

In the United States, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) conducts investigations under Section 201 to determine if an article is being imported in such increased quantities as to be a "substantial cause" of serious injury. SJKP LLP audits these injury claims to identify whether external factors—such as domestic mismanagement or shifts in consumer demand—are the actual cause of the industry's distress.

By law, safeguards must be time-limited and progressively liberalized. In 2026, many existing safeguards on steel and solar products are approaching their legal expiration or "sunset" reviews, requiring a forensic analysis of whether the domestic industry has successfully adjusted to import competition.

The "surge" must be sudden, sharp, and significant. It is not enough for imports to grow steadily over a decade; there must be a recent spike that disrupts the market equilibrium. SJKP LLP utilizes forensic data analysis to deconstruct these trends, often proving that "import surges" are merely temporary responses to domestic supply shortages.

"Serious injury" is a significantly higher legal standard than the "material injury" used in anti-dumping cases. It requires a finding of a "significant overall impairment" in the domestic industry’s position, evidenced by:

• Widespread plant closures and bankruptcies.
• Terminal declines in capacity utilization.
• Massive workforce reductions.

Yes. This is the defining characteristic of a safeguard. Because they target "fair" trade, the legal burden is higher, and affected trading partners often have the right to seek compensation or retaliate if the measure is found to be inconsistent with WTO obligations.

Sudden tariffs(such as the 25% IEEPA-linked semiconductor tariffs effective January 15, 202) can render existing purchase orders unprofitable. SJKP LLP reviews these contracts to implement "tariff shift" and "hardship" clauses, ensuring that the legal burden of the safeguard is equitably distributed between the buyer and seller.

Yes. Importers and foreign exporters can challenge the ITC’s injury findings or the President’s remedy in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). While courts give great deference to the President, SJKP LLP identifies the procedural failures and "unsupported facts" in the administrative record to seek stays or exclusions from the measure.