The action grew out of investigations opened in March 2026 into whether trading partners police forced labour in their export supply chains, with determinations published in June and the action signed in late July. The structure is unusual: the rate depends on the partner's own enforcement commitments, which makes the layer as much a lever on foreign regulators as a tax on goods. Importers feel it as a percentage. Its designers built it as an incentive.
It also arrived the same minute another layer left. The temporary Section 122 global surcharge expired by operation of law at 12:01 am on July 24, 2026, and the Section 301 forced labour layer took effect at that moment. Entries around that boundary need their entered for consumption date checked precisely, because a day either side changes which stack applies, and brokers working from habit applied the old layer to new entries for weeks.
Treat the forced labour layer as additional, not substitutive: it sits on top of the MFN base rate and alongside the older China list Section 301 duties where those apply, while certain product categories covered by Section 232 headings are carved out rather than stacked under it. The exemption lists, in the action's annexes and the Chapter 99 notes, are product specific, so a family level assumption will misfire on individual lines in both directions.
CBP's filing instructions put the Section 301 line first in the trade remedy reporting sequence, ahead of Section 232 and Section 201 lines, before the Chapters 1 to 97 classification. Sequence sounds clerical until an entry is rejected or a line is dropped, at which point the order of reporting becomes the difference between a clean entry and a correction cycle conducted against a liquidation clock.
Pull every entry since July 24 by origin and confirm three things per line: the forced labour layer is present where the origin is in scope, absent where an exemption genuinely applies, and rated at the band that matches the partner's commitment status. Then check the boundary week separately, entries entered in the days around July 24, because that is where the expired surcharge and the new layer were most often confused.
Update the stack sheets your landed cost models read from. A model still carrying Section 122 percentages, or missing the new layer entirely, will misprice every quote it touches while looking perfectly consistent internally. The failure mode of a stale stack is not an error message. It is a quarter of confident, wrong pricing.
An action justified on forced labour enforcement invites questions beyond the duty line. Importers already carry UFLPA exposure on Xinjiang linked inputs, with detention risk and traceability files to maintain. A partner level action adds a second reason to know where goods and their components are actually made, documented to a standard that survives a CBP request for information rather than a supplier's assurance.
Keep the two regimes separate in your files even though the sourcing work overlaps. UFLPA is a prohibition with a rebuttable presumption on specified inputs; the Section 301 layer is a duty with rates and exemptions. Conflating them produces traceability files that answer neither regime's actual questions.
Keep reading: UFLPA detentions: the traceability file is what releases your cargo, Section 301 List 4A and 4B: why a split from 2019 still sets your price in 2026.
For goods entered for consumption on or after July 24, 2026, the same moment the temporary Section 122 surcharge expired. Entries around that date need their entry date checked exactly, because the applicable stack changes across the boundary and the two layers were widely confused in the first weeks.
Ten percent for trading partners that committed to forced labour import bans, and 12.5 percent for those that did not, across about 60 economies. China sits in the 12.5 percent band. The layer is additional to the MFN base rate and, for Chinese goods, sits alongside the older China list Section 301 duties unless an exemption applies.
Yes. Exemptions are listed in the action's annexes and Chapter 99 notes, and some categories under Section 232 headings are carved out rather than stacked. Exemptions are product specific, so check the individual line and its note references instead of assuming a whole product family is in or out.
UFLPA is an import prohibition built on a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang forced labour are barred, enforced through detention. The 2026 Section 301 action is a duty: it prices goods from economies judged on their forced labour enforcement, with rates and exemptions. The sourcing diligence overlaps, but the legal mechanics and the files you keep are different.