Overview
Navigating cross-border tariffs is complex, but effective mitigation always starts with product-level data, not headline news.
Both Canadian and U.S. trade measures are designed around strict product classifications, specific rules of origin, and entry dates. Businesses selling into the U.S. face customer pricing pressure, while importers face direct impacts on working capital and landed costs. Relying on headline rates or assuming CUSMA automatically applies can leave companies vulnerable to unexpected duties or compliance penalties.
In this webinar, Christian Goehring, Director – Global Trade & Regulatory Affairs at Leyton, walks through the active tariff measures, clarifies how CUSMA rules apply to current surtaxes, and outlines actionable financial strategies and relief pathways to protect business margins.
What You’ll Learn
From auditing customs entry data to submitting duty remission requests, this session covers what it actually takes to reduce tariff exposure.
- How to determine true tariff exposure — Understand the three critical elements: product classification, country of origin, and entry date.
- How CUSMA applies to new surtaxes — Learn why CUSMA qualification does not automatically exempt goods from targeted Section 338/232 measures or Canadian counter-tariffs.
- How to model margin and pricing impacts — Calculate the real math behind landed costs, margin compression, and price-adjustment strategies for B2B and retail channels.
- Which relief pathways exist — Get a clear overview of Canadian Duty Remission, Duty Drawback/Relief programs, and U.S. Customs recovery routes.
- How to submit a Duty Remission request — Understand what Finance Canada looks for: domestic unavailability, economic impact evidence, and non-U.S. supplier outreach records.
Who is this webinar for?
Built for any Canadian business or finance team evaluating how cross-border tariffs impact their operations and profitability.
✓ Canadian Manufacturers & Distributors Businesses dealing with complex multi-border supply chains, raw material imports, and finished product exports
✓ Business Owners & Executives Companies exporting to the U.S. or importing U.S. inputs seeking to maintain competitiveness and profitability
✓ Finance, Procurement & Supply Chain Leaders Professionals managing landed costs, working capital, inventory planning, and supplier negotiations
✓ Trade & Customs Compliance Specialists Teams responsible for tariff classification, CUSMA origin documentation, and customs audit readiness
Q&A
Below you will find the answers to the questions raised during the webinar, prepared by our expert Christian Goehring, Director – Global Trade & Regulatory Affairs.
Please note that these answers are provided for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice.
If you have questions related to your specific situation or that of your organization, we encourage you to contact us directly.
How should we be calculating the Customs Value of a given product? We never had tariffs before, so we never had to consider a strategic customs value prior to these past two years. We used to simply declare the value of the sale.
Methodology hasn’t changed — both countries still use transaction value: price actually paid/payable, plus assists/royalties/packing, minus allowable freight/insurance deductions. What’s new is the stakes. Worth reviewing now: unbundling non-dutiable charges from the invoice, and First Sale for Export (using an earlier, lower factory price if a genuine multi-tier sale exists) — strategies nobody bothered with when duties were near zero.
At what point during the purchase of a product is the true tariff amount known?
Not until liquidation (up to ~314 days post-entry, longer with extensions). The rate that applies is generally the one in effect at entry for consumption, not PO date or ship date — goods in transit when a rate changes are usually still hit by the new rate. Treat quotes as estimates; build in contingency.
Does CUSMA apply to professional services?
CUSMA’s Chapter 15 does cover cross-border trade in services generally. But it’s moot for tariffs specifically: duties apply only to physical goods crossing the border — they never touched services in the first place, CUSMA or not.
For businesses identifying overpaid duties on entries, what is the biggest reason claims are rejected: evidence, valuation, origin, classification, or missing deadlines?
Evidence/documentation, with missed deadlines close behind. CBSA won’t process a claim if required info is missing. Deadlines bite harder than expected because FTA-origin claims get only a 1-year window vs. the general 4-year window — a lot of valid CUSMA claims die just from that mismatch.
For aerospace companies importing U.S.-origin goods into Canada and subsequently re-exporting them, which recovery pathway is currently delivering the best success rate and turnaround time?
Duties Relief Program (D8) generally beats Duty Drawback (D7) for repeat re-exporters: D8 avoids paying duty upfront (license-secured), while Drawback requires paying first then filing a claim that sits in CBSA’s verification queue. For long aerospace production cycles, avoiding the cash outlay usually beats waiting on a refund. (This is a structural assessment, not a documented win-rate stat.)
Why doesn’t CUSMA eliminate every duty?
- Only covers originating goods meeting rules of origin.
- Was never designed to override national-security/retaliatory tariff authorities — several 2026 actions say so explicitly. The July 2026 Section 338 proclamations state they apply “regardless of whether a good originates under… USMCA.”
- Doesn’t touch AD/CVD duties, GST/HST/excise, or quota-protected sectors (dairy, poultry).
Who pays under DDP?
The seller — full cost and responsibility for duties, taxes, and clearance to the named destination. Buyer never touches a customs bill.
Does buying Canadian eliminate exposure entirely?
No. Canadian-made goods often contain imported inputs that carry their own tariffs; and if you sell into the U.S., your own sourcing choices don’t shield your exports from U.S. tariffs on the way out.
We are a Canadian entity. We currently manufacture products in China/Taiwan and import them into the U.S. for sales. We also have a U.S. entity registered. Would it make any difference if we imported under the U.S. entity? I understand that you already talked about three segments, one of them being product origin. In this case, the origin has not changed.
Correct that origin (China/Taiwan) doesn’t change, so the underlying origin-based duties apply the same either way — switching IOR doesn’t launder origin. It could matter for: arm’s-length valuation/First Sale eligibility, access to U.S.-side tools (FTZ, drawback, bonded warehousing) if goods are later re-exported, and who bears compliance liability. Model it with a broker against your actual flows.
Can you confirm whether the product codes in the White House Annex I are all subject to the 50% tariff, even if they were previously covered by CUSMA?
Terminology is inconsistent across sources — check the actual proclamation. Most commonly, the HTS product list is in Annex II, not Annex I (one source reverses this). What’s consistent: for products actually listed, the 50% duty applies regardless of USMCA origin — a first for a major U.S. action. Coverage goes well beyond the headline categories (wine, plywood, cement, furniture, hockey sticks, etc.), so check your 8-digit HTS code directly rather than assuming by product category.
What happens when a Canadian seller pays the tariffs on behalf of a U.S. customer, but the customer subsequently returns the product? Would the customer receive a refund of the tariff amount?
Possible, not automatic. U.S. drawback law (19 U.S.C. §1313) allows up to 99% recovery on rejected/returned merchandise, but it requires an affirmative claim with proof of import and return, often with prior notice to CBP. The refund goes to whoever holds drawback rights (usually you, as payer/IOR) — passing it to the customer is a separate commercial decision. Nothing happens if no claim is filed.
We are shipping aluminum insect screens separately to our U.S. customer, about two months after the windows and doors were delivered. The screens are manufactured in Canada, but the aluminum material is imported from Malaysia. The screens are an integral part/accessory of the windows and doors, similar to handles and other hardware. Could you please advise on the applicable U.S. tariff and whether there is any legitimate way to reduce or eliminate the tariff based on classification, country of origin, USMCA/CUSMA, or treatment of the screens as part of the original windows and doors? Also, what documentation should we provide to U.S. Customs to show that these screens are back-ordered components of the original window and door shipment and are being shipped separately?
- Origin: Canadian manufacture likely = substantial transformation = Canadian origin for CUSMA/marking purposes.
- But: Section 232 aluminum “derivative” tariffs increasingly attach to the metal’s smelt-and-cast country, not the finished article’s origin — so Malaysian content may still be dutiable even on a “Canadian” product.
- Classification matters a lot — “parts/accessories of aluminum doors and windows” vs. generic aluminum article changes the outcome. Worth a binding ruling.
- No formal mechanism lets a later shipment ride on an earlier entry’s duty treatment — each entry stands alone. Best move: build a strong paper trail (original PO showing screens were in scope, back-order correspondence, invoice cross-referencing the original shipment, CUSMA certificate, aluminum smelt/cast documentation, bill of materials).
If a U.S. client sends raw materials to a Canadian manufacturer and substantial transformation occurs, with the product cost consisting of approximately 80% raw materials and 20% transformation of the raw material (with no losses), can tariffs be applied to the 20% transformation/value added?
These two concepts conflict. The 20%-only duty mechanism (HTS 9802.00.80) only applies when the foreign operation is assembly or minor processing — it explicitly excludes processes substantial enough to be a new article. If true substantial transformation is happening:
- Origin becomes Canada, and
- Duty generally applies to the full value on re-entry, unless the finished good separately qualifies for CUSMA preference (and even then, Section 232 metal tariffs could still apply on top).
If “substantial transformation” was a loose description rather than the precise legal standard, and the Canadian operation is really closer to assembly, the 20%-only treatment may hold. This distinction is worth a ruling request — it’s the difference between duty on 20% and duty on 100%.