Burlap & Barrel says it is absorbing tariff costs and calls the Section 301 duties unlawful
Burlap & BarrelEthan Frisch, co-founder and co-CEO, speaking for Burlap & Barrel
Ethan Frisch says the Section 301 tariffs have not materially changed Burlap & Barrel's tariff burden compared with the earlier tariffs. He says the company is absorbing the added costs rather than passing them to customers or partner farmers. He considers the tariffs unlawful, hopes the court will suspend them while the case proceeds, and says the company is prepared to pursue its challenge to the Supreme Court.
“We have refused to raise our prices to customers or to pass the costs along to our partner farmers, so we've covered the increase internally. This has been quite challenging for us as a bootstrapped social enterprise.”
Emailed statement
Read the full email
October 2, 2026, 9:56 a.m. Eastern time. Ethan Frisch's answers to Dispute Index. Question 1: How have the 10% and 12.5% Section 301 duties affected Burlap & Barrel's import costs since July 24 compared with the Section 122 surcharge that ended that day? Unfortunately, there hasn't been a material change in the tariff's impact on Burlap & Barrel. The Section 301 tariff regime is a copy-paste of the 122 tariffs, which were a copy of the IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year. It uses a different statute for justification but imposes the same illegal tax on small businesses. We have refused to raise our prices to customers or to pass the costs along to our partner farmers, so we've covered the increase internally. This has been quite challenging for us as a bootstrapped social enterprise. Question 2: What did the May 7 relief change for the company in practice, and what does the company expect if the panel rules for the plaintiffs in the Section 301 sample case? Unfortunately, other than the very short term relief provided by the initial ruling, there's been no practical change for Burlap & Barrel or other small businesses. We hope the forthcoming Section 301 ruling puts the new tariffs on hold while the case is decided. We're ready to take it all the way to the Supreme Court to lift the unfair and illegal tax burden on our company and all small businesses in the US.
Where this statement fits
Are Trump's Section 301 "forced labor" tariffs a lawful remedy, or a pretext to revive struck-down global tariffs?
On July 23, 2026, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, at President Trump's direction, imposed additional tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The duties took effect July 24. USTR says each economy failed to impose and effectively enforce a ban on imports of goods made with forced labor, which it found unreasonable and a burden on U.S. commerce. Businesses and 25 states sued in the Court of International Trade. They say the forced-labor rationale is a pretext for re-creating the global tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February, and that USTR skipped the country-by-country findings the statute requires. The Justice Department says USTR made findings for all 60 economies on a record of data, testimony and public comments. A three-judge panel heard argument on September 30, 2026. As of that date, no court had ruled on the Section 301 tariffs. The disputed question is whether the tariffs are a lawful remedy under Section 301 or a pretext to revive the struck-down global tariffs.
Source and context
Emailed statement
Emailed statement from Ethan Frisch of Burlap & Barrel on Section 301 tariffs
October 2, 2026, 9:56 a.m. Eastern time. Ethan Frisch's answers to Dispute Index. Question 1: How have the 10% and 12.5% Section 301 duties affected Burlap & Barrel's import costs since July 24 compared with the Section 122 surcharge that ended that day? Unfortunately, there hasn't been a material change in the tariff's impact on Burlap & Barrel. The Section 301 tariff regime is a copy-paste of the 122 tariffs, which were a copy of the IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year. It uses a different statute for justification but imposes the same illegal tax on small businesses. We have refused to raise our prices to customers or to pass the costs along to our partner farmers, so we've covered the increase internally. This has been quite challenging for us as a bootstrapped social enterprise. Question 2: What did the May 7 relief change for the company in practice, and what does the company expect if the panel rules for the plaintiffs in the Section 301 sample case? Unfortunately, other than the very short term relief provided by the initial ruling, there's been no practical change for Burlap & Barrel or other small businesses. We hope the forthcoming Section 301 ruling puts the new tariffs on hold while the case is decided. We're ready to take it all the way to the Supreme Court to lift the unfair and illegal tax burden on our company and all small businesses in the US.
About this source
Ethan Frisch, Burlap & Barrel's co-founder and co-CEO, answered Dispute Index's questions about the company's tariff costs and the effect of the May 7 ruling. His answers and the questions are reproduced here; greetings, signatures and repeated quoted correspondence are omitted. The company website identifies the speaker's organization; the evidence is his emailed response.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Dispute Index asked how the Section 301 duties had affected Burlap & Barrel compared with the Section 122 surcharge and what the May 7 relief changed in practice.
After the quotation
Frisch described only short-term relief from the initial ruling and said the company was prepared to pursue its challenge to the Supreme Court.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the Section 301 tariffs, Frisch calls the burden an illegal tax and seeks suspension of the duties. He opposes the tariffs themselves.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Donald Trump, Office of the United States Trade Representative
More from this case
Read the full caseGresser says USTR never showed forced-labor goods are traded or underpriced, so it has no right to impose the tariffs
“Ours argues that USTR's 301 investigation has not actually identified a "burden" or "restriction" on U.S. commerce - the standard the statute sets for administrations wanting to use it to impose tariffs - and so the Report of last June does not give USTR a right to impose tariffs.”Read statement
Economists' brief signer Dr. Stan Veuger personally backs Professor Ilya Somin's view that the Section 301 tariffs exceed the statute
“I think the brief speaks for itself on point 1. Speaking for myself I agree with Ilya Somin's view on point 2.”Read statement
Professor Somin says HMTX supports the challenge to the Section 301 tariffs
“On your other question, nothing so massive and sweeping as the government's current Section 301 tariffs can possibly authorized by the statute. And if a statute did authorize it, it would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Burlap & Barrel says it is absorbing tariff costs and calls the Section 301 duties unlawful
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4487-ethan-frisch-says-the-section-301-tariffs-have
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Burlap & Barrel says it is absorbing tariff costs and calls the Section 301 duties unlawful". First published: 2026-10-02. Last updated: 2026-10-02. https://disputeindex.com/events/4487-ethan-frisch-says-the-section-301-tariffs-have