US Proposes Extra Duties on Bangladesh Imports

The United States has proposed additional tariffs on imports from a good number of countries including Bangladesh after concluding that their efforts to curb trade in goods produced with forced labour are inadequate and restrict US commerce.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) on Tuesday determined under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that the acts, policies, and practices of 60 economies related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act. 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has prepared a comprehensive report, Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor, that supports the findings in each investigation.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable. This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field,” said Ambassador Jamieson Greer. 

“We will no longer tolerate this disparity.  Some trading partners have taken initial steps to prevent the importation of forced labor goods, including through USMCA and commitments in Agreements on Reciprocal Trade. However, each of our trading partners must do more to ensure that trade does not perversely encourage and entrench forced labor globally.” 

To be assured of consideration, interested persons should submit requests to appear at the hearings, along with a summary of testimony by June 22, 2026, according to USTR. Written comments are due by July 6, 2026.

USTR will hold hearings about the proposed actions in these investigations on July 7, 2026.

As a result of these determinations in the investigations, the U.S. Trade Representative has proposed responsive action for public comment.

Specifically, the U.S. Trade Representative proposes additional duties on all products of the investigated economies, except as provided in Annex A to the Federal Register notice. 

For economies that impose a forced labor import prohibition, that have committed to impose and enforce such a prohibition through an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, or economies that have imposed a partial regime with the effect of preventing the importation of certain forced labor goods, the U.S. Trade Representative proposes 10% as the rate of additional duties. 

For all other economies, the U.S. Trade Representative proposes 12.5% as the rate of additional duty. 

The U.S. Trade Representative also proposes a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports from certain economies to enter the United States at a reduced Section 301 tariff rate.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), is designed to address unfair foreign acts, policies, or practices affecting U.S. commerce. 

Section 301 may be used to respond to unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory foreign government acts, policies, or practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. 

Under Section 302(b) of the Trade Act, the Trade Representative may self-initiate an investigation under Section 301.

On March 12, 2026, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated 60 investigations related to the failure of various economies to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

Pursuant to Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act, USTR provided the public and interested persons with opportunities to present their views through a public comment process and through a public hearing. 

USTR received testimony of nearly 60 witnesses and 500 comments and rebuttal comments. 

The U.S. Trade Representative has determined that the failure of each of the 60 investigated economies to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and thus is actionable under Section 301(b)(1) of the Trade Act.  In particular, the U.S. Trade Representative determined:

The following 54 economies have failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour:

Algeria; Angola; Argentina; Australia; the Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Brazil; Cambodia; Chile; China, People’s Republic of; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; Guatemala; Guyana; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; India; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kuwait; Libya; Malaysia; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; Russia; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; South Korea; Sri Lanka; Switzerland; Taiwan; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Türkiye; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Uruguay; Venezuela; and Vietnam.

The following six economies have failed to effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor: Canada; Ecuador, the European Union; Indonesia; Mexico; and Pakistan.

Therefore, all of the investigated economies have failed both to impose a forced labor import prohibition and to effectively enforce such a prohibition.

The failure of each of the investigated economies to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition is unreasonable because it: (1) undermines the universal aim of eliminating forced labor; (2) permits firms that avail themselves of forced labor to produce goods at lower cost and thereby distort market conditions for firms that do not use forced labor; (3) undermines the profitability of firms that do not use forced labor; and (4) contributes to the circumvention of existing forced labor import prohibitions.

The failure of each of the above-listed economies to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition burdens or restricts U.S. commerce by subjecting U.S. producers to unfair competition from forced labor goods both in export markets and the U.S. market, and by displacing foreign goods produced without forced labor or forced labor inputs into the United States and other markets, reports UNB.