Story Highlight
– Collective Horology challenges Trump administration’s new tariffs.
– Lawsuit filed with spice importer Burlap & Barrel.
– Claims tariffs burden watch industry businesses financially.
– Seeks to block tariffs and recover previous dues.
– Argues tariffs affect all retailers, not just small businesses.
Full Story
Collective Horology has initiated a new legal challenge against the recent tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, citing the significant strain these import duties place on niche businesses within the watch sector.
The California-based retailer is collaborating with spice importer Burlap & Barrel in a lawsuit presented to the US Court of International Trade. The case contests the newly applied tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, with support from the Liberty Justice Center. The plaintiffs assert that the administration overstepped its legal authority by imposing broad tariffs on multiple countries without conducting the necessary country-specific assessments.
Asher Rapkin, co-founder of Collective Horology, remarked that the lawsuit is a response to over a year of enduring escalating tariffs that have increased costs for independent retailers, brands, and collectors alike.
“Since April 2025, Collective, like so many small businesses in the USA, has been bearing the financial burden of the IEEPA tariffs, then the Section 122 tariffs, and now, once again, the newly imposed Section 301 tariffs,” stated Rapkin.
He further explained that small businesses are facing exorbitant costs due to tariffs; Collective Horology is reportedly owed over $164,000 in refunds for IEEPA tariffs, yet these are still pending. Meanwhile, they have incurred significant expenses from Section 122 and Section 301 tariffs.
“The costs have deprived us and so many other small businesses of cash flow and operating capital and forced price increases that no one — no dealer, no collector, no watchmaker — wants,” Rapkin added.
This lawsuit follows previous successful challenges against earlier tariff-related policies under the Trump administration. Rapkin highlighted that Collective Horology felt compelled to act after observing other businesses advocating for change.
“Other businesses have stepped forward before us on behalf of all of us, and this time around we felt it was our turn to speak up,” he noted.
While the core legal arguments revolve around the application of Section 301, Rapkin clarified that their challenge is not an opposition to measures against forced labour.
“We take forced labour seriously, and no one in this case is arguing it isn’t a real problem,” he said. “What we know is that USTR applied a uniform tariff to nearly every country the US trades with… without, in our view, doing the country-by-country work the law requires. That’s the legal issue, not whether forced labour exists somewhere in the world.”
The ramifications for the watch industry are immediate and significant.
“It means that importing a Swiss watch is at minimum 12.5% more expensive than it was before April 2025,” Rapkin explained. Coupled with the robust Swiss franc and broader economic challenges, tariffs have emerged as a pivotal factor in rising prices, complicating inventory management for authorized dealers, challenging independent brands in meeting demand, and making purchases increasingly costly for collectors.
“It makes collecting harder and more expensive, full stop,” he stated.
Rapkin also refuted the notion that only smaller retailers are suffering from these tariffs.
“In this instance, we’re all in it together,” he emphasized. “Everyone from the big holding companies to the smallest makers is hit by this. This isn’t a ‘Collective Horology’ issue; it impacts us all.”
The lawsuit aims to prevent the enforcement of the latest tariffs and to maintain importers’ rights to recover duties should the court determine the measures to be unlawful.
