PANews reported on February 22 that Yu Yuan Tan Tian pointed out in an article that since February of last year, the new tariffs imposed by the United States on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) mainly consist of two parts. The first is the so-called "fentanyl tariff," currently at a rate of 10% on China; the second is the so-called "reciprocal tariff," currently applying a 10% rate to China, with the remaining 24% rate temporarily suspended. According to the US executive order, these tariffs, implemented under the IEEPA, will be "terminated as soon as possible." Following the ruling by the US Supreme Court, it means that the US executive order canceling IEEPA tariffs, issued based on the Supreme Court's ruling, also applies to the relevant parts of the China-US tariff arrangement, and the IEEPA tariffs on China should be automatically cancelled.

The latest so-called "temporary tariffs" imposed by the United States invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which has not been used for a long time, on the grounds that it "fundamentally addresses the imbalance in the United States' international payments," especially the problem of the huge U.S. trade deficit. However, the application of Section 122 is premised on a fundamental problem in the U.S. international payments. Legally, the basis for this judgment is not a single goods trade deficit, but the overall international payments situation, including capital flows, trade in goods and services. From this perspective, after these tariffs take effect, the United States is likely to face the risk of being sued, just as before. Cui Fan, who is familiar with international trade negotiations, said that if the U.S. stops the relevant measures or lowers the tariff rate, China does not rule out the possibility of making assessments and adjustments based on actual changes; but if the U.S. continues to impose new tariffs using other legal tools, China will also assess whether to take corresponding measures.