Tariffs have become a recurring cost issue for U.S. importers, with new trade actions affecting goods across much of the global supply chain. That national fight now runs through Burlap & Barrel, a New York-based spice company that says the government’s latest tariff program could raise costs on products that end up in American pantries. Because spices are largely imported, the legal outcome could matter beyond one company and could influence what shoppers pay at the grocery store.
Burlap & Barrel takes the latest tariff fight to court
Burlap & Barrel and California watch retailer Collective Horology filed a lawsuit on July 24, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the administration’s latest Section 301 tariffs, according to the Liberty Justice Center, which represents both businesses. The filing asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, block enforcement and preserve refunds with interest for affected entries, the group said. Associated Press reported the challenged tariffs impose double-digit levies on 60 trading partners and cover 99% of U.S. imports.
The case follows earlier tariff litigation involving the same spice company. In a separate Section 122 dispute, the Court of International Trade identified Burlap & Barrel as a New York-based spice company and ecommerce business that imports single-origin spices from at least 22 countries. That earlier case centered on a temporary 10% global duty announced on February 20, 2026, and set to take effect February 24, 2026, before expiring on July 24, 2026, according to the court decision.
The new complaint targets how the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative used Section 301. Supply Chain Dive, citing the complaint, reported that the lawsuit argues tariff rates were determined before the investigation was completed and that the government did not provide a meaningful country-by-country analysis. The White House did not immediately respond to Associated Press’ request for comment.
What the case could mean in New York and at the store shelf
For New York, the confirmed local detail is the plaintiff itself: Burlap & Barrel is based in New York, and the company’s challenge puts a food importer from the state at the center of a national trade case. The public filings and coverage reviewed do not state a New York facility closure, layoff, or store count tied to the lawsuit. The company also has not released a public list of specific New York retailers or grocery partners that could be directly affected by any cost changes linked to the tariffs.
What is clearer is the type of expense at issue. Tariffs are paid by importers when goods enter the United States, and those added costs can pressure pricing decisions for wholesalers, food brands and retailers. In the earlier tariff fight, Bloomberg Law reported Burlap & Barrel had been paying the contested tariffs almost daily and estimated it had paid more than $100,000 so far.
That does not automatically translate into an immediate, item-by-item grocery increase in New York. The available reporting does not identify which spice products, pack sizes or shelf prices may change, and no court ruling has yet ordered nationwide relief in this new case. Still, for consumers, the core issue is straightforward: if import taxes remain in place for products with limited domestic alternatives, the cost pressure begins before those goods ever reach a supermarket.
Why spices are part of a broader trade and food cost story
The reason this dispute matters for food is that many spices are not easily replaced with U.S.-grown equivalents. Burlap & Barrel has said its business depends on single-origin spices sourced from smallholder farmers in other countries, and earlier court materials stated that some international varieties cannot be substituted domestically. That makes tariffs less like a switchable sourcing problem and more like a direct added cost for certain imported ingredients.
The administration’s current tariffs were implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which the government has tied to countries’ failure to prevent imports produced by forced labor, according to Associated Press. The lawsuit argues that Section 301 requires more specific findings than the government provided. Legal observers told AP that the challenge may be harder than earlier cases because Section 301 has previously survived court scrutiny in other contexts, including tariffs on China from Trump’s first term.
For shoppers, the near-term takeaway is not a confirmed price spike but continuing uncertainty around import costs in the food supply chain. If the tariffs stay in place, businesses that rely on imported spices may keep facing added costs at the border; if the challengers win, they are seeking to stop enforcement and preserve refunds for affected entries, according to the Liberty Justice Center. Either way, the case keeps a basic grocery concern in focus: how trade policy can move from a court filing to the price of ingredients on a store shelf.