Harman and Taihan Cable Join Lawsuit Against U.S. Government for Reciprocal Tariff Refunds

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Legality as Early as January 14
Companies Move to Secure Refund Rights Ahead of Ruling
Around 1,000 Companies Worldwide File Lawsuits

Harman, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, and the U.S. subsidiary of Taihan Cable have filed lawsuits against the U.S. government, demanding a refund of reciprocal tariffs and a halt to further imposition. With the U.S. Supreme Court expected to rule as early as January 14 (local time) on the legality of the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs, these companies appear to be taking preemptive action to secure the right to a tariff refund.

According to the Korean industry and the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) on this day, Harman and the U.S. subsidiary of Taihan Cable recently filed these lawsuits, claiming the reciprocal tariffs are invalid. It is reported that not only Korean companies but also about 1,000 companies worldwide have filed similar lawsuits so far.

The Trump administration, in April of last year, expanded executive authority based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, enacted in 1977) to impose reciprocal tariffs on countries around the world. The administration imposed differential reciprocal tariffs on various countries, citing unfair trade practices and threats to national security. These measures were implemented through executive orders without congressional approval.

At that time, South Korea was also subject to a 25% tariff rate. After subsequent tariff negotiations, South Korea promised $350 billion (approximately 517 trillion won) in investments in the U.S., and the tariff rate was reduced to 15%.

In response to these measures, U.S. importers filed lawsuits, arguing that the tariffs imposed through excessive use of presidential authority were invalid, and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling within a day. Previously, the court of first instance ruled on May 1 of last year that the reciprocal tariffs were invalid, pointing to an abuse of presidential authority, and the appellate court upheld this decision in August of last year.