Instruments more than 100 years old are exempt from the Section 301 duties that took effect in the United States on 24 July 2026, under an exemption written into the operative tariff annex. Qualifying overseas repair work remains dutiable on the value of the work performed. Both findings sit inside a month in which the United States and the European Union changed the rules on goods crossing their borders, while the United Kingdom confirmed the change it intends to make next.

Updated 6 August 2026 to add the third Court of International Trade challenge, filed on 3 August, and the refund position that follows from it. Updated 14 August 2026 to add the import restrictions on Nepali cultural material, which expressly cover musical instruments, the Section 232 proposal on brass-wind instruments, and the position on refunds for importers who have not filed suit. Updated 24 August 2026 to add the CITES section: the revised Annotation #10 on pernambuco, in force since 5 March 2026, which sharply restricts commercial cross-border trade in wild-harvested material and brings finished bows into the permitting regime, and the unchanged Annotation #15 exemption for finished rosewood instruments.

Instrument dealers have spent two years reading a tariff story told from one side of one border. July 2026 ended that. The United States imposed new Section 301 duties on 24 July, the European Union began charging a flat customs duty on low-value consignments on 1 July, and the United Kingdom confirmed on 13 July that it will remove the relief that currently exempts consignments under £135. Vintage & Rare found no guitar-press coverage of any of these developments, and none at all of the antiques exemption inside the US action, which is the most commercially useful thing in it.

One number sets the scale. The Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated in May 2026 that the average effective tariff on musical instruments entering the United States, HTS Chapter 92, reached 16.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2026, approximately three times the 2024 figure. Real Chapter 92 import value over the same period fell 20.4 per cent against Q1 2024, with orchestral strings down 42.3 per cent and wind instruments down 23.2 per cent. That analysis predates everything below, which sits on top of it.

Into the United States

New Section 301 duties took effect on goods from approximately 60 economies on 24 July 2026, following investigations into forced labour practices. The Federal Register notice was published on 28 July and applied retroactively to 12:01 a.m. Eastern on the 24th, with a narrow in-transit grace period for goods loaded before the 24th and entered before 12:01 a.m. on the 28th.

Four groups divide the affected economies, and the group matters more than the headline percentage. Two groups are additive, meaning the new rate sits on top of the existing most-favoured-nation duty. Two are net of MFN, meaning the combined figure is capped. The United Kingdom falls in a 10 per cent additive group and the European Union in a 10 per cent net-of-MFN group, so a British and a German instrument attracting the same headline rate can land at different totals. Japan sits in a 12.5 per cent net-of-MFN group and China in a 12.5 per cent additive group.

Group membership follows the country an instrument was manufactured in, not the country it ships from. A Japanese-built instrument consigned from a dealer in Germany sits in the 12.5 per cent net-of-MFN group rather than the 10 per cent one, and a US-built instrument returning from Europe is not an EU-origin good at all. In a trade where the origin of the stock and the address of the dealer routinely differ, reading the rate off the shipping address will produce the wrong number.

Three features of the regime matter as much as the rates. USTR exempted an additional 471 products in its final action, but set those exemptions in advance and created no mechanism to apply for a product to be carved out afterwards. The duties stack, applying in addition to antidumping and countervailing duties unless an exemption applies. And no fixed expiry date attaches to them, although Section 307 permits later modification and review, which makes this a standing regime rather than a permanent one.

Two further ranges sit alongside the duty headings and are worth knowing by number. Headings 9903.05.85 through 9903.05.92 carry the general exemptions that apply across all affected economies, covering in-transit goods, civil aircraft, pharmaceuticals, specified materials, donations and informational materials. Headings 9903.06.01 through 9903.06.21 carry economy-specific exclusions granted under trade agreements, and the economies named there include Switzerland, Taiwan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A dealer sourcing from any of those should check the exclusion range rather than assume the headline country rate applies to everything.

Antiques over 100 years old are exempt

Antiques properly classified under HTS heading 9706 are expressly excluded from these Section 301 duties, and the exclusion sits in the operative tariff annex rather than in practitioner interpretation.

USTR’s final action provides that under heading 9903.05.86, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20 through 9903.05.84 do not apply to articles classified under a list of specified provisions. That list ends with three entries, 9705.39.00, 9706.10.00, and 9706.90.00. Heading 9706 covers antiques of an age exceeding 100 years. USTR reached that position having received comments requesting exemptions for art, antique, and collectible products.

For a trade that moves a substantial volume of pre-1926 material, the ordinary MFN-free treatment of those instruments survives this action intact.

One qualification carries real weight. The exemption attaches to classification under heading 9706, not to the calendar, so an instrument being more than 100 years old does not make a 9706 entry automatic. Evidence of age, authenticity, constituent parts, whether substantial later alteration has changed what the object now is, and whether it fits the legal tariff description at all can each be argued. Those arguments predate this action and are familiar territory. What has changed is only that the argument now concerns whether a given instrument qualifies as an antique, and no longer whether antiques are caught by the new duty.

Antique instruments from Nepal now need export certification

An exemption from duty is not an exemption from every other control, and a restriction that took effect on 12 August 2026 makes that point sharply for one origin.

The United States imposed import restrictions on categories of archaeological and ethnological material of Nepal, published at Federal Register document 2026-16432 and implemented as CBP Decision 26-16. The designated list expressly includes musical instruments, under Section C covering metal objects. The ethnological categories run from approximately the 13th century to 1950, and the archaeological categories very much earlier.

The practical effect is a documentary condition rather than a prohibition. Entry is conditioned on 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c, which in ordinary terms means an export certificate issued by Nepal, or satisfactory evidence that the object left Nepal lawfully before the restriction took effect. The restrictions run to 8 January 2031.

For most dealers this changes nothing. For anyone handling antique Himalayan brass and bronze — horns, cymbals, singing bowls, ritual instruments — it is a new gate on the way in, and one where provenance paperwork that was merely desirable last month is now the condition of entry. It is also a reminder that the 9706 antiques exemption addresses the tariff and nothing else. An object can be duty-free and still inadmissible.

A CITES change sharply restricts commercial trade in pernambuco bows

The tariff is not the only rule that moved this year, and the one most likely to catch a dealer unprepared is not a duty at all. The revised CITES annotation on pernambuco took effect on 5 March 2026. It applies across CITES Parties, although individual countries may impose stricter domestic requirements.

Pernambuco (Paubrasilia echinata), the wood from which almost every quality violin, viola, and cello bow is made, remains in CITES Appendix II. What changed is the annotation governing international movement of the species. Revised Annotation #10 imposes a zero quota on wild-harvested specimens, source code W, traded for commercial purposes. In practical terms, commercially trading a finished bow made from wild-harvested pernambuco is no longer permitted where the wood was harvested after the species entered CITES in 2007.

Three practical routes now matter.

The first is age. Pernambuco harvested before 13 September 2007 can still be traded internationally for commercial purposes, including in finished bows, but a CITES pre-Convention certificate is required. A bow whose provenance cannot be established sufficiently to support pre-Convention status does not qualify by default, and the trader must be able to provide evidence supporting the claim.

The second is source. Pernambuco derived from plantation-grown or otherwise non-wild material is not caught by the zero quota for source code W. Commercial international trade remains possible, but it requires the appropriate CITES permit or certificate showing a source code other than W.

The third is non-commercial movement. Annotation #10 exempts finished musical instruments, finished parts, and finished accessories moved for non-commercial purposes. The wording covers paid and unpaid performance, personal use, display, loan, competition, teaching, appraisal, and repair, provided ownership does not change and the movement is not for the sale, transfer, or disposal of the specimen outside the owner’s usual country of residence. A player carrying their own bow abroad to perform can sit inside that exemption. A dealer shipping the same bow to a buyer in another country does not.

For a trade that routinely ships bows internationally on approval and on sale, that is a significant operational change, and it is separate from anything on the tariff side. Whether an object is dutiable and whether it is admissible under CITES are separate questions, answered under different regimes, and they can come out differently on the same object.

Rosewood instruments are unchanged

The reassuring half concerns rosewood. Annotation #15 continues to exempt finished musical instruments, finished musical instrument parts, and finished musical instrument accessories containing the Appendix II Dalbergia species to which it applies. CITES documentation itself confirms that exemption, and the report presented at CoP20 on its operation was adopted without debate according to the joint music-sector report.

A guitar with a rosewood fingerboard or bridge therefore continues to cross borders without a CITES permit on that account where the wood falls within Annotation #15. The long-standing exception remains Brazilian rosewood (Dalbergia nigra), which is Appendix I and is expressly outside the Dalbergia Appendix II listing covered by Annotation #15.

African blackwood (Dalbergia melanoxylon), the grenadilla used in clarinets, oboes, and some instrument parts, remains covered by the finished-instrument exemption. The music-sector report from CoP20 also records confirmation of Mozambique’s existing export quota for the raw wood, while noting that the Significant Trade Review remains ongoing.

One note on sourcing. The pernambuco detail above is supported by current US Fish and Wildlife Service guidance implementing revised Annotation #10, including the 5 March 2026 effective date, the zero quota for wild-harvested source-W material, the pre-Convention route, and the separate route for plantation-grown material. The text and scope of the Annotation #15 exemption are confirmed in CITES documentation, while the account of its treatment at CoP20 and the Mozambique grenadilla decision comes from the joint music-sector report published after the meeting. A dealer with a live pernambuco or rosewood consignment should confirm the requirements with the relevant national CITES management authority before shipping.

Section 232 reaches musical instruments for the first time

A separate proceeding, not yet in force, would bring a different tariff regime to bear on Chapter 92.

The Bureau of Industry and Security published a notice on 6 August 2026, Federal Register document 2026-15961, proposing to add fourteen further categories of derivative article to the Section 232 metals tariffs. One of the fourteen is brass-wind musical instruments and their parts and accessories. The proposed rate is 25 per cent, described in the notice as the rate set out in clause (3) of Proclamation 11021. The notice does not assign brass-wind to a particular metal; it groups all fourteen categories as composed predominantly of aluminium, steel or copper by weight, and brass being a copper alloy makes the copper leg the likely basis, which is an inference rather than something the notice states.

Two details matter more than the headline rate. Under Proclamation 11021, effective 6 April 2026, Section 232 duties apply to the full customs value of the imported product regardless of metal content, so this would be 25 per cent on the whole instrument rather than on the brass in it. And the notice cites HTSUS 9205.10.0000, which is not a live ten-digit statistical reporting number; the operative suffixes are 9205.10.0040 for instruments valued at not over $10 each and 9205.10.0080 for those over, together with 9209.99.4080 for parts and accessories.

Stringed instruments and electric guitars are not in this proposal. Neither HTS 9202 nor 9207 appears anywhere in it, and the parts heading for stringed instruments, 9209.92.8000, is absent while the brass and woodwind parts line is included. Guitar dealers are not affected by what is on the table.

The reason to watch it anyway is that this is the first time Chapter 92 goods have been drawn into Section 232 at all. The mechanism is being extended product by product, and an instrument category with metal content is now inside it. The comment period closes on 27 August 2026, and as at 14 August no extension, amendment or correction had been published.

Two Chapter 98 routes, two different outcomes

Chapter 98 entries escape the new duties, but only where CBP accepts the classification, and the 9802 repair provisions are carved back out. Customs and Border Protection implemented the duties through new HTS headings 9903.05.20 to 9903.05.84 and issued guidance on 23 July in CSMS message #69326983. CBP’s wording is precise on the condition attached.

“The additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20–9903.05.84 shall not apply to goods for which entry is properly claimed under a provision of chapter 98 of the tariff schedule pursuant to applicable regulations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘CBP’), and whenever CBP agrees that entry under such a provision is appropriate”

That closing condition does real work. An importer claims a Chapter 98 classification; the classification does not execute itself, and CBP has to agree.

The same guidance then treats two situations differently. For goods entered under subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, or 9802.00.60, the additional duties apply to the value of repairs, alterations, or processing performed. For goods entered under heading 9802.00.80, a different provision and a different calculation, they apply to the value of the article assembled abroad, less the cost or value of such products of the United States.

An instrument shipped abroad and returned unsold after a show, an approval period, or an unsuccessful consignment is the standard case for heading 9801.00.10, goods returned. That heading has two limbs. US-origin goods qualify where they return without having been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad. Foreign-origin goods qualify where they return within 3 years of export, on the same condition that no advancement in value or improvement in condition took place.

The foreign-origin limb matters more to this trade than the first one, because most of the stock V&R dealers ship is not American. A Japanese or European instrument previously imported into the United States, sent out to a show or on approval and returned unchanged within 3 years, may be able to use heading 9801.00.10 even where US origin cannot be established at all. On that route, the 3-year clock is the constraint, not origin.

An instrument sent abroad for a qualifying repair or alteration and then re-entered falls instead under 9802.00.40 or 9802.00.50, dutiable on the value of the work performed rather than on the value of the instrument. For a dealer using a specialist restorer in Europe or Japan, that is a recurring new cost on a workflow which has been routine for decades.

Two further points sit underneath the contrast, and both are where dealers are most likely to come unstuck.

The word “unsold” is not a customs classification. A 9801.00.10 claim on a US-origin instrument in a shipment valued above $2,500 ordinarily requires declarations addressing the date and port of export, that the goods returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad, who manufactured them and where, the claimant’s ownership or importer status, and whether drawback was allowed on export. CBP may seek further proof, including a manufacturer’s statement, export invoice, bill of lading, or air waybill. On high-value vintage instruments, serial numbers, dated inventory records, export declarations, photographs, carnets, and shipping paperwork may form the practical evidentiary spine, although those are examples rather than an express regulatory checklist.

Failure routes differ by limb. A US-origin claim fails where origin cannot be established, or where the goods were advanced in value or improved abroad. A foreign-origin claim fails where the 3-year window has closed. Either claim fails where work was done abroad, where parts were substituted, where the importer cannot prove the returned instrument is the one that was exported, where drawback was allowed on export, where documentation is inadequate, or where CBP declines the proposed classification.

Not all work counts as a repair or alteration. Treatment under heading 9802 depends on the exported article retaining its identity and essential character, so work that produces a commercially different article, or that substantially completes an unfinished one, may fall outside the provision. A refret or a refinish is one conversation. A major structural restoration, a neck replacement, or an extensive reconstruction combining foreign parts and foreign labour is a different one, and needs classification analysis rather than assumption.

Across both routes, the paperwork now determines the outcome. Two instruments of identical value, crossing the same border in the same direction, can be treated entirely differently depending on which provision the entry is made under, whether the documentary requirements are satisfied, and whether CBP agrees.

Where the legal challenges stand

Case status as at 14 August 2026.

Two suits were filed at the Court of International Trade on 24 July 2026, the day the duties took effect. Burlap & Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer (CIT 1:26-cv-3345) was brought by the Liberty Justice Center as a proposed class action. Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. United States (CIT 1:26-cv-3347) was brought by seven plaintiffs, several of whom succeeded in the earlier IEEPA challenge. Both argue on substantially the same ground, that USTR failed to make the properly individualised, country-specific determinations Section 301(b) requires.

A third and much larger action followed on 3 August 2026. State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al. (CIT 26-03467) was brought by 25 states, led by Oregon and including the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania suing in their own right. It pleads three counts, that the tariff action exceeds USTR’s statutory authority, that it is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it is ultra vires. The substantive case is that the investigation was compressed into roughly two and a half months where such investigations ordinarily run twelve or more, that the rates bear no demonstrated relation to the prevalence of forced labour in any given economy, and that no country has a route to cure its conduct and obtain relief, since a 10 per cent floor applies regardless of compliance.

The states also plead the sequence. The Section 122 tariffs expired on their own terms on 24 July 2026, at the end of their statutory 150-day life, and the complaint alleges that USTR published the Section 301 action the day before that expiry so that the tariff scheme continued without interruption. The 150-day ceiling is pleaded as evidence that the substitution was planned rather than coincidental.

The remedy is what separates the states’ action from the other two. Its prayer for relief asks the court to award refunds for tariffs already paid under the action, and Burlap & Barrel seeks refunds for its proposed class.

None of the three changes what importers pay now. Filing a complaint does not suspend collection, and the duties continue to apply unless a court orders otherwise. Refunds, though, are paid against records, and a refund that cannot be evidenced at entry-line level is not a refund. A dealer importing into the United States should be keeping entry summaries, commercial invoices, and proof of duty paid on every US-bound consignment from 24 July onward, filed so that they can be retrieved by entry date.

There is a working precedent for how that ends, and it is not encouraging for the passive. Refunds of the earlier IEEPA tariffs are being processed through the CAPE mechanism, and by the end of June 2026 CBP had reported to the court that it had authorised in the order of one hundred billion dollars in refunds against roughly a hundred and sixty-six billion collected. But a CIT order of 15 July 2026 confirmed the distinction that matters: importers who had filed their own actions hold court orders directing CBP to process refunds on entries that might otherwise sit beyond its ordinary reliquidation authority, while importers who had not filed have no comparable confirmed mechanism. A motion to certify a class covering the second group was argued at the CIT on 6 August 2026 and has not been decided; trade press expects a ruling in late autumn or early winter, though the court has set no date.

The read-across to the Section 301 challenges is not automatic, since those are different actions under a different statute. What the IEEPA experience does establish is that a favourable judgment and an actual refund are separate events, and that the gap between them has so far been bridged by having filed.

Into the European Union

A flat €3 customs duty has applied to low-value consignments entering the European Union from outside it since 1 July 2026, where the goods are sold through distance selling, principally e-commerce sales to consumers. The previous duty relief on those consignments ended on 30 June 2026.

The scope limitation carries more practical weight than the charge. This is not a blanket duty on every commercial movement under €150. Dealer-to-dealer consignments, temporary admissions, repair returns, and other movements outside distance selling sit outside the measure’s core scope, and further exceptions apply, including certain preferential-origin and customs-union entries. A dealer whose EU shipping is not e-commerce to consumers should establish where it falls rather than assume the charge bites.

Where the €3 duty does apply, it is charged per tariff classification and not per parcel. The European Commission’s own worked example puts several T-shirts in one parcel at a single €3 charge because they share a classification, and T-shirts plus a watch at €6, because that is two classifications.

Liability attaches to the declarant, which depending on the arrangement may be the seller, the importer, an IOSS participant, a special-arrangements user, a platform, a carrier or indirect representative, and residually the consumer. “The seller pays” is not a safe assumption in either direction.

Whole instruments rarely fall under €150, so the likely exposure for V&R dealers sits at the other end of the catalogue, in pickups, tuners, bridges, strings, smaller accessories, used parts, and mixed parts orders. That is an inference about typical inventory rather than a measured figure, and it will not hold for every business, since boutique pedals and quality cases frequently exceed €150 and price alone does not determine exposure where the measure turns on distance selling.

The European Commission describes the arrangement as temporary, with guidance referring to application until approximately 1 July 2028, ahead of the broader customs reform. As of August 2026, that is the current timetable rather than a fixed commitment.

Into the United Kingdom, where nothing has changed yet

The £135 low-value import relief remains in force in the United Kingdom as of August 2026. HM Treasury and HMRC published a policy paper on 13 July 2026 confirming that it will go, stating that the measure “will come into force on such day as the Treasury may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint by October 2028 at the latest.”

That represents a change of pace as well as of substance, since Budget 2025 had announced removal “from March 2029 at the latest.” The government describes the October 2028 deadline as an acceleration of 6 months, and the Treasury retains power to appoint an earlier commencement day.

The date is the less consequential half. The same paper introduces a concept with no current equivalent.

“the concept of a fiscal representative (a UK-based business that assumes joint and several liability for any debts incurred by an overseas seller in relation to LVI customs declarations)”

A fiscal representative carries joint and several liability for customs debt arising from another party’s low-value import declarations. Under the announced structure, a dealer outside the United Kingdom selling into it would need a UK-established business willing to accept liability for those debts. A UK-established business, including a UK dealer who handles inbound consignments for overseas colleagues, would face the reverse question of what exactly is being taken on.

Two years is a long lead time, and the commencement date is not fixed. The structural change is confirmed, and it is the kind of change that reshapes who is willing to act for whom.

What to ask your broker

Everything above is regulatory information rather than legal or customs advice, and Vintage & Rare is not in a position to give either. Readers should confirm current rules with the relevant national authority. What the July changes do generate is a specific and answerable list of questions that a broker or customs lawyer can work through for an individual business.

1. For instruments we ship out of the United States and receive back unsold, are we entering under 9801.00.10, does our documentation satisfy the requirements, and has CBP accepted the classification?
2. For our non-US-origin stock, are we inside the 3-year window on the foreign-origin limb of 9801.00.10, and how are we evidencing the export date?
3. For instruments we send abroad for work, does that work qualify as a repair or alteration under 9802.00.40 or 9802.00.50, and how is the dutiable value being calculated?
4. Is any of our foreign work extensive enough that it might fall outside heading 9802 altogether?
5. For instruments over 100 years old, do they qualify for classification under 9706.10.00 or 9706.90.00, and what evidence of age and originality would sustain that?
6. Which Section 301 group applies to each country we buy from, and is the rate additive or net of MFN?
7. Are we determining that group by country of manufacture rather than by the address the instrument ships from, and can we evidence origin where the two differ?
8. Are any of the HTS provisions we routinely use on the exemption list at 9903.05.86 or elsewhere in the annex, and do any of the economies we buy from appear in the exclusion range at 9903.06.01 to 9903.06.21?
9. If we handle anything of Nepali origin, can we produce an export certificate or evidence of lawful export predating 12 August 2026?
10. If one of the pending challenges succeeds, what records would we need to have kept in order to claim a refund on duty already paid since 24 July, and does the IEEPA refund experience suggest we should be a party rather than a bystander?
11. For EU-bound consignments under €150, are our sales inside the distance-selling scope, who is the declarant, and how many tariff classifications sit in a typical box?
12. When the UK relief goes, who would act as our fiscal representative, and on what terms?
13. If we ship pernambuco bows or other finished instrument items, can we establish whether the material was harvested before 13 September 2007, came from a plantation-grown or otherwise non-wild source, or is moving genuinely non-commercially within the Annotation #10 exemption, and do we have the certificate, permit, or evidence required for that route?
14. For rosewood instruments, are we relying on the Annotation #15 finished-instrument exemption correctly, and have we confirmed nothing in the consignment is Brazilian rosewood (Dalbergia nigra), which sits outside it?

Three regimes are still moving, no exclusion request process exists on the US side, and the litigation will take its course whatever dealers assume about it. The settled good news is the antiques exemption, provided the classification holds.

Sources

• USTR, Section 301 forced labour investigations, final action and annexes, heading 9903.05.86 exemption list including 9706.10.00 and 9706.90.00. ustr.gov
• “Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations,” 91 FR doc 2026-15181, published 28 July 2026. federalregister.gov
• US Customs and Border Protection, CSMS #69326983, 23 July 2026. CSMS bulletin
• 19 CFR §10.1, “Domestic products; requirements on entry”. ecfr.gov
• “Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Nepal,” FR doc 2026-16432, effective 12 August 2026, CBP Decision 26-16. federalregister.gov
• Bureau of Industry and Security, “Request for Public Comments on the Proposed Implementation of Duties on Additional Aluminum, Steel, and Copper Derivative Articles Under Section 232,” FR doc 2026-15961, published 6 August 2026, comments close 27 August 2026. federalregister.gov
• Proclamation 11021, “Strengthening Actions Taken to Adjust Imports of Aluminum, Steel, and Copper into the United States,” effective 6 April 2026, full customs value provision. federalregister.gov
• US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Pernambuco CITES Annotation #10 Implementation FAQs,” revised Annotation #10 effective 5 March 2026. fws.gov
• US Fish and Wildlife Service, letter to importers on revised CITES Annotation #10 for pernambuco (Paubrasilia echinata), dated 13 February 2026. fws.gov
• CITES, Notification to the Parties No. 2025/030, “Annotation #15: Draft Report on the impact of CITES exemptions for Dalbergia and Guibourtia,” 13 March 2025. cites.org
• CAFIM, CSFI, FIM, IPCI France-Europe, and PEARLE*, “CoP20 Reinforces Species Protection While Preserving the Future of the Musical Sector,” 8 December 2025. fim-musicians.org
• European Commission, “Ensuring fairness and safety: €3 customs duty on low-value parcels,” 29 June 2026. commission.europa.eu
• HM Treasury and HMRC, “Reforming the customs treatment of low value imports into the UK,” 13 July 2026. gov.uk
• HM Treasury, Budget 2025, prior “from March 2029 at the latest” announcement
• Peterson Institute for International Economics, “Tariffs slashed US musical instrument imports. What’s the end?”, 26 May 2026. piie.com
• Burlap & Barrel, Inc. v. Greer, CIT 1:26-cv-3345, filed 24 July 2026. Liberty Justice Center
• Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT 1:26-cv-3347, filed 24 July 2026
• State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al., CIT 26-03467, filed 3 August 2026, complaint. oag.ca.gov
• V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, CIT 1:25-cv-00066, class certification argued 6 August 2026, undecided as at 14 August 2026