Our Expert in USA
US trade measures targeting Russia, and the third countries that continue to buy Russian energy, remain one of the most consequential and fast-moving areas of US trade law. Legislation styled the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 (widely associated with Senator Lindsey Graham) advanced through the 119th Congress with substantial bipartisan support, and its headline feature attracted particular attention: authority for extremely high tariffs, figures of up to 500 per cent have been discussed in the bill text and public debate, on goods of countries that purchase Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products. Separately, the executive branch has used existing authorities to impose additional tariffs on certain trading partners over their Russian-oil purchases.
Because the statutory and executive measures in this space continue to evolve, and because precise percentages, effective dates and country lists change, businesses must verify the current status of any specific measure against primary government sources before acting. This article explains, in practical terms, how such secondary-tariff and sanctions frameworks typically operate, what remains prohibited under existing OFAC programs regardless of tariff action, and sets out operational guidance for exporters, importers, refiners, energy traders, shippers, insurers and multinational compliance teams with US nexus.
Legislation of this kind establishes a statutory architecture granting the executive branch broad authority to impose economic measures against Russia and against entities or countries that trade with, or facilitate evasion involving, Russia. Such bills have proposed tariff powers at very high magnitudes and typically delegate significant discretion to the President (often with a role for the Secretary of State) to activate, waive and condition those measures, frequently including a presidential waiver or national-security determination mechanism. Understanding the statutory scaffolding matters because any implementing executive action operates within, and is limited by, the powers the statute confers. Before relying on any specific provision, confirm the enacted text and its current status on Congress.gov.
Measures of this type typically reach goods of Russia directly and extend to third-country actors, in particular, significant importers of Russian crude oil, natural gas and related products, and persons that facilitate sanctions evasion. The jurisdictional reach is often deliberately broad, capturing not only US persons but also non-US entities whose conduct brings them within the scope of the tariff authorisations. Statutory definitions determine which goods, persons and transactions fall within scope, and the executive is generally empowered to designate and act against them through implementing orders, proclamations or regulations.
New tariff authorities do not replace the existing Russia-related sanctions landscape; they sit alongside it. The United States already maintains a dense web of restrictions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), including blocking sanctions, prohibitions on specified categories of transactions, and measures targeting third-country facilitation. Tariff measures add a border-duty dimension, ad valorem duties enforced at entry, to these pre-existing financial and trade controls.
This layering matters because the regimes operate through different agencies and mechanisms. OFAC administers blocking and licensing; US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses and collects duties at entry. A transaction may be permissible under one regime while exposed under the other. The critical practical point is that even where a tariff is waived or suspended, underlying OFAC programs and earlier executive orders generally continue to bind. Compliance teams should therefore treat tariff authorities as an additional, not a substitute, layer of exposure, and screen every transaction against both the applicable tariff framework and the full suite of OFAC programs in force.
Where a statute authorises very high tariffs, implementing executive action commonly has two features that can appear to pull in opposite directions: provisions that activate the tariff authorities, and provisions that waive or suspend them subject to conditions or a presidential determination. Reading activation and waiver provisions together is key to understanding the commercial environment at any given moment: duties can be legally authorised yet administratively suspended, and any such suspension is typically revocable.
Secondary-tariff frameworks of this type have generally been described as imposing additional ad valorem duties layered on top of ordinary duty rates. Proposed and enacted measures in this area have included:
Effective-date construction is significant. Where a duty attaches only to new purchases made on or after a stated date, that creates a bright-line timing test companies must document carefully. Businesses should preserve evidence of contract dates, purchase orders and delivery arrangements that straddle any relevant date, because the characterisation of a transaction as a pre-existing commitment versus a new purchase may determine whether a given duty applies. Verify any specific date against the operative order or statute.
Where an implementing order or statute provides for a waiver, that waiver is typically conditional, resting, for example, on a presidential or State Department determination, and generally has no fixed expiry, so it can be withdrawn at the discretion of the executive. Critically, a waiver of tariffs usually does not dismantle the broader sanctions architecture; existing Russia-related sanctions imposed under earlier executive orders and administered through OFAC programs commonly remain preserved. For practitioners, the central takeaway is that a tariff waiver is not a repeal. Companies cannot treat suspended duties as permanently gone, and they certainly cannot read a tariff waiver as authorising transactions that remain prohibited under pre-existing OFAC rules.
A discretionary tariff waiver is frequently misunderstood as a green light to resume dealings with Russian counterparties. It is not. OFAC’s programs continue to operate in full force unless and until OFAC itself issues specific relief. Any business that reorients its procurement or payment flows on the assumption that a tariff measure has reopened the Russian market risks serious OFAC exposure.
Several categories of restriction typically remain binding notwithstanding any tariff waiver:
OFAC’s enforcement posture toward Russia has been assertive, and the overlay of new tariff authorities is unlikely to soften it. Enforcement attention has concentrated on evasion, circumvention and the use of intermediaries to disguise the Russian nexus of goods and payments.
To avoid stumbling into an OFAC violation while navigating a tariff environment, companies should: screen all counterparties and their beneficial owners against the SDN List and relevant sanctions lists before every transaction; document the sanctions analysis supporting each deal; route payments only through compliant banking channels and confirm correspondent banks will clear the transaction; and escalate any transaction with a Russian, Iranian or high-risk third-country nexus to sanctions counsel before proceeding. Where any ambiguity exists about whether a transaction is permitted, the safer course is to seek a specific OFAC licence rather than rely on a tariff waiver.
Tariffs are enforced at the border by CBP, which assesses and collects duties on imported merchandise. Understanding how CBP operationalises an ad valorem duty is essential to modelling cost, allocating liability in contracts, and managing circumvention risk. Where headline percentages are very high, those additional duties are layered on top of ordinary duty rates, and their magnitude means even small valuation or classification errors carry enormous financial consequences.
CBP assesses ad valorem duties as a percentage of the declared customs value of imported goods. Importers of record are responsible for making accurate entry declarations, including correct valuation, classification and country-of-origin statements. A very high duty rate multiplies the entered value into a large liability, so valuation accuracy is paramount. Importers should ensure entry documentation is complete and defensible, retain supporting records, and recognise that the importer of record generally bears primary liability for the duty regardless of contractual pass-through arrangements with suppliers. Because liability attaches at entry, treasury and compliance functions must coordinate to ensure sufficient duty-payment capacity and accurate accruals.
With duties this severe, the incentive to misstate or disguise country of origin is acute, and so is CBP’s scrutiny of it. Country-of-origin determinations govern whether duties on goods of Russia, or on goods of targeted importer and facilitator countries, apply. Transshipment, superficial processing in a third country, and relabelling are classic circumvention tactics that CBP and enforcement authorities actively investigate. Importers should conduct genuine origin due diligence, obtain and verify supplier origin declarations, and be alert to supply chains that appear engineered to defeat the tariff. Knowingly participating in circumvention exposes a company not only to duty liability but to penalties and potential criminal risk.
A distinctive feature of secondary-tariff frameworks is their reach into non-US conduct. High duties on major purchasers of Russian energy, or on facilitators of evasion, mean that non-US actors can trigger tariff consequences for their goods through their dealings with Russia. This is best understood as a form of secondary-tariff exposure, conceptually analogous to secondary sanctions but operating through border duties rather than financial prohibitions.
Enforcement authorities assessing secondary exposure will look to factors such as knowledge (did the party knowingly make new purchases of Russian energy?), intent, the repeated or systematic nature of the conduct, and whether the party functioned as a facilitator of evasion. A single inadvertent transaction sits differently from a pattern of deliberate facilitation.
The table below summarises the three categories of measure companies must track and offers a simple lens for scoring exposure across transactional, counterparty, jurisdictional and evidentiary dimensions. Treat the specifics of any measure as subject to verification against primary sources.
| Category | Legal status | Who is affected | Risk driver to assess |
|---|---|---|---|
| Activated tariff measures | Live in law; may be suspended by waiver | Goods of Russia; countries importing Russian energy; facilitators of evasion (as specified in the operative measure) | Country of origin; purchase date; facilitation conduct |
| Waived tariff measures | Suspended, conditional on a determination; revocable at any time | Parties within the scope of the specified waived duties/sanctions | Durability of waiver; monitoring for withdrawal |
| Unaffected OFAC measures | In full force; not touched by any tariff waiver | US persons and, for programs reaching non-US persons, foreign parties dealing with blocked or restricted parties | SDN/blocked-party exposure; evasion and facilitation |
High-risk scenarios include: procurement of Russian-origin commodities routed through an intermediary jurisdiction; new purchases of Russian crude by an entity in a targeted importer country; and payment or logistics services provided to a counterparty whose conduct may qualify it as a facilitator of evasion. Mitigations include enhanced origin due diligence, documented knowledge-based screening, contractual representations and warranties about origin and sourcing, and avoiding any structuring that could be characterised as designed to evade the measures. Where a transaction scores high across multiple dimensions of the matrix, escalate to counsel before proceeding.
A tariff regime that can be activated or suspended by revocable executive discretion creates acute contractual risk. A waiver that ends mid-contract can convert a profitable deal into a loss overnight if the agreement does not allocate that risk clearly. Contracts entered into or renewed now should expressly address the possibility that very high additional duties become payable at short notice. The clauses below are illustrative and must be adapted to each transaction with the benefit of client-specific legal review.
Define triggers by reference to objective, verifiable events, publication of a Federal Register notice, revocation of a determination, or imposition of the duty at entry, rather than subjective judgments that invite dispute. Impose prompt notification obligations so that a counterparty learning of a waiver withdrawal must inform the other party within a short, fixed period. In multimarket contracts, specify which jurisdiction’s measures govern the trigger and ensure clauses interact coherently with force majeure and material-adverse-change provisions rather than overlapping ambiguously. Keep a documented record of the sanctions and tariff analysis underpinning each contract, as that record will be valuable in any later enforcement inquiry.
The practical impact of high secondary-tariff measures varies by sector. The following steps tailor the response to the businesses most exposed.
Review all open orders and pipeline transactions for Russian origin or a targeted-country nexus. Confirm country-of-origin determinations and gather supporting evidence. Identify any purchases that straddle a relevant effective date for new tariff measures and document their characterisation. Update entry procedures so declared values and classifications are defensible, and confirm treasury can fund duty liabilities if a waiver is withdrawn. Screen counterparties against OFAC lists before every shipment.
Refiners and energy traders face sharp exposure given the explicit targeting of Russian crude, gas and related products and their importers. Review procurement strategy against applicable importer duties, scrutinise the status of counterparties in targeted importer countries, and ensure payment routing avoids blocked parties and non-clearing channels. Treat any new purchase of Russian energy as a decision requiring documented sanctions and tariff analysis.
Carriers, insurers and logistics providers should verify cargo origin and the sanctions status of all transaction parties, review sanctions and tariff exclusions in cover, and coordinate with P&I clubs on exposure where a voyage touches targeted trades. Robust documentation of origin and counterparty screening is the first line of defence.
Update internal trade-controls policies to reflect the dual tariff-and-sanctions environment, define clear escalation paths for high-risk transactions, train commercial teams on any bright-line effective dates, and establish a monitoring function to detect waiver withdrawal or new measures. Ensure the compliance function has authority to halt transactions pending review.
Because tariff waivers and determinations can change at any time, continuous monitoring is essential. Companies should watch for both official and market signals:
Monitor primary government sources regularly where exposure is material, and assign ownership so that a detected signal triggers an immediate internal alert and contract-review workflow. Treat a confirmed revocation, withdrawal or new imposition as an event requiring prompt activation of contractual suspension or termination rights.
US secondary-tariff and sanctions measures targeting Russia and its energy trade reward preparation and punish complacency, particularly where very high duties can be activated or suspended by revocable executive discretion. In the next 30 days, conduct a legal review of open contracts, screen counterparties against OFAC lists, and confirm the status of transactions straddling any relevant effective date, verifying the current measures against primary sources. Within 90 days, update trade-controls policies, revise pricing and treasury hedging models, insert tariff- and sanctions-sensitive clauses into new and renewing contracts, and verify insurance cover. Within 180 days, embed a standing monitoring function for new measures and waiver-withdrawal signals, complete sector-specific procedure updates, and train commercial teams.
Above all, remember that a tariff waiver is not a repeal: existing OFAC programs remain binding, and compliance with both the tariff and sanctions regimes is non-negotiable. This article is general information and not legal advice; businesses should consult qualified counsel before acting on any transaction with Russia, Iran or a high-risk third-country nexus.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Erich Ferrari at Ferrari & Associates, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
The text and status of any Sanctioning Russia Act and related bills in the 119th Congress can be located through Congress.gov and, once enacted, the U.S. Code. Executive orders and presidential actions are published through the White House and the Federal Register. OFAC program and licensing guidance is available from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, export-control guidance from the Bureau of Industry and Security, customs and duty-assessment guidance from CBP, and State Department determinations from the U.S. Department of State. Ground every compliance decision in these primary sources and consult counsel for application to specific facts.
posted 9 minutes ago
posted 30 minutes ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Send welcome message
