South Korea says trade deal intact after US court voids 15% tariff

A recent U.S. high‑court decision struck down the emergency executive authority that supported a 15% reciprocal duty on certain Korean exports, formally voiding that specific surcharge. Seoul responded immediately: Industry Minister Kim Jung‑kwan convened an urgent review to assess immediate commercial impacts and to coordinate diplomatic and administrative follow‑up. South Korea’s Ministry of Trade said the bilateral trade framework remains functional but warned the ruling narrows one enforcement route rather than eliminating elevated trade measures altogether. Within hours of the judgment, the White House moved to rely on the Trade Act’s Section 122, issuing a proclamation to apply a temporary, economy‑wide 10% surcharge that carries a statutory 150‑day sunset unless Congress acts to extend or replace it. That pivot preserves U.S. tariff leverage while shifting the legal basis and shortening the window for unilateral emergency duties. Officials and analysts note Section 122 surcharges are additive to other levies and do not automatically unwind separate duties imposed under Section 232 (national‑security) or Section 301 (targeted trade remedies), meaning many goods could still face elevated effective rates. Customs and Treasury collection figures cited in related proceedings underscore the scale of the dispute and the administrative challenge: contested receipts were described in some filings as roughly $130 billion in scope, while contemporaneous customs data show monthly collections near $30 billion and fiscal‑year‑to‑date receipts near $124 billion — complicating any mass refund effort. Practical consequences will be uneven: large firms with detailed duty records are better placed to seek administrative refunds or litigation, while small exporters and importers face cash‑flow and bond‑call risks and scramble to reclassify goods, reroute sourcing or adjust pricing. Market reactions were swift but mixed; import‑exposed equities initially rallied on expectations of relief, then moderated as investors weighed the effect of a new temporary surcharge and the likelihood of further statutory or administrative actions. Diplomatically, Seoul framed its public response to preserve stability, signalling preference for consultation, exemptions or carve‑outs for integrated supply chains rather than retaliatory steps. The next 6–12 months are likely to see intense administrative activity — CBP guidance, Treasury rules on refunds, and many follow‑on petitions — plus potential congressional debate over permanent statutory fixes or limits on executive tariff authority, all of which will determine whether relief is transient or more durable.