Amid renewed trade tensions between the European Union and the United States, the US tariff landscape is evolving rapidly and remains challenging for businesses to navigate. As the US administration increasingly relies on multiple legal instruments, while the European Union develops its own response, exporters are operating within a framework that is both more uncertain and more structured. A clear understanding of these dynamics is essential to secure trade flows and anticipate risks.

In the Keladis cases, the CJEU strictly circumscribes the use of “acceptable minimum prices” derived from European statistical databases, notably those disseminated by the European Anti-Fraud Office. It recalls that such data can never, on their own, displace the transaction value and may be relied upon only as a measure of last resort, in compliance with the hierarchy of valuation methods and subject to strict safeguards.

The Supreme Court’s decision of 20 February 2026 reshapes the US tariff framework by striking down duties imposed under the IEEPA. To maintain commercial pressure, the Trump administration immediately activates Section 122 and introduces a universal 10% import surcharge.

The successive crises that international trade has faced in recent years have reshaped supply chains. Once a secondary concern for businesses after the rise of liberal globalisation driven by the 1994 Marrakech Agreements, the management of customs risks has now become a differentiating factor and a driver of competitiveness. On top of this come the risks inherent to regulatory enforcement.

As from 1 January 2026, the PEM framework will no longer operate as a coherent whole. Instead, it will be structured around two distinct regimes: (i) partners applying the revised PEM rules; and (ii) partners remaining subject to the 2012 rules or former bilateral protocols. For companies, this evolution leads to a significant increase in complexity.