On April 2nd, Donald Trump announced a set of new tariffs using a somewhat controversial formula, resulting in sweeping blanket tariffs of 10% for the UK, 20% for the EU, and 34% for China, and many others. At that point, we had no idea whether this was also applying to artworks, antiques and / or design items.
This was made of 2 tiers:
Reading through the white house communications, we quickly realized that there had been no change under the 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b) which is a key provision within the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), specifically listing certain exemptions or limitations on the President’s authority to regulate or prohibit transactions during a declared national emergency.
In plain language, section 1702(b) ensures that certain types of materials and communications remain protected from presidentially-imposed trade restrictions. It explicitly, and notably, excludes artworks, books, films, photographs, and similar cultural materials. The intention is to protect freedom of speech and communication under the First Amendment.
At that point, we knew that artworks were likely not going to be impacted, but antiques and design items were going to take a significant hit - which was very bad news for antique dealers, auction-houses, and design galleries that we work with.
On April 9th, Trump announced that he would pause the implementation of the second tier of tariffs.
However, for China specifically, the tariffs applied to goods entering the U.S. were increased to 125%. Tariffs for all other countries have now been aligned at 10%, which was a welcome news for galleries focusing on antiques and design.
Artworks are explicitly included in the exemption provided under 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3) because historically, U.S. lawmakers have viewed these items as forms of expression and communication protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech). There are three primary reasons for this:
Historically, artworks are thus included to safeguard fundamental principles related to freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas and culture, irrespective of political or economic contexts.
However, the risk of changes is not zero.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), clarified that this exemption does not protect art transactions involving sanctioned individuals or entities if artworks are used to circumvent economic sanctions or launder money. Therefore, artistic transactions directly or indirectly involving sanctioned persons or entities remain excluded from this exemption and may be subject to legal sanctions.
Thus, while the general exemption for artworks remains intact today, it does not protect transactions serving as cover for illicit activities related to existing sanctions.
Moreover, and somehow linked to the above, a U.S. administration could theoretically decide, under exceptional circumstances (such as invoking a “national emergency”), to apply restrictive measures similarly to artwork exchanges with other regions, like Europe, by asserting that art trade with such regions poses a threat to U.S. national security.
I believe such a scenario is unlikely given the significant diplomatic, economic, cultural, and legal repercussions, which would be highly negative for the United States itself (considering it is the largest art market globally). However, as recent days have shown, anything remains possible.
For galleries selling artworks, there’s no direct impact, as artworks remain exempt from tariffs.
However, galleries focused on antiques, design objects, and decorative items, which aren't covered by this exemption, are already feeling significant effects.
First, import costs have noticeably increased due to the new 10% baseline duty. Galleries importing antiques and design objects now face tighter profit margins, particularly when sourcing from countries not previously subject to tariffs. The issue is further complicated when items contain aluminum or steel components, as these portions are subject to an additional 25% tariff. As a result, some collectors and clients are reconsidering or delaying acquisitions.
Second, administrative burdens have intensified considerably. Galleries are spending increased time and resources navigating customs processes alongside brokers, leading to higher operational costs. Customs delays are also becoming more frequent (for example, DHL recently temporarily halted business-to-consumer (B2C) shipments to private individuals in the U.S. for items with a declared customs value above USD 800, in an effort to clear accumulated backlogs).
Overall, these tariffs have quickly created both financial and logistical challenges for our gallery clients who deal in antiques and design objects.
The indirect impact on the broader art market is more closely tied to stagflation and volatility in the stock market. The uncertainty triggered by recent tariff developments has led to significant value destruction for stockholders, some of whom are active art collectors.
We expect this to translate into declining valuations at the top end of the art market, as collectors become more cautious or withdraw liquidity from the market altogether. Likely consequences include a clear shift in demand away from mid-tier or speculative artworks towards Blue-Chip artists with proven market stability, or toward lower-priced art.
A top-end gallery we recently spoke to reinforced this view, noting a number of cancelled sales over the past few weeks, along with significant delays as collectors hesitate or postpone wiring funds amid heightened market volatility.
Looking ahead, the potential future impact could be even more pronounced if the situation doesn’t normalize. Persistent inflationary pressures will likely prompt central banks to raise interest rates. In a higher interest-rate environment, alternative investments like art become comparatively less attractive, especially since art doesn't generate income through dividends or interest payments, unlike bonds, yield-generating assets or simply a savings account. Collectors may therefore shift their focus away from art towards assets offering more predictable returns.
Now, looking ahead, I don’t believe the current US administration can sustain this situation much longer. There are already signs they're softening their stance: Donald Trump recently said he isn't planning to remove Jay Powell from the Fed, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly described the current high tariffs between Washington and Beijing as "unsustainable," adding that he expects a "de-escalation" of the trade war in the very near future.
In addition, Elon Musk has clearly expressed support for a Free Trade Zone (FTZ) between the US and the EU, and the U.S. President announced just yesterday that we should anticipate a substantial reduction in duties and tariffs with China.
If these signals materialize, we could soon see a return to more predictable market conditions, which would be reassuring news for collectors and the wider art market.
While all art fairs will likely feel some indirect effects from these new tariffs, the ones most impacted in the short-term will clearly be U.S.-based fairs, especially those focused on antiques and design objects.
To understand why, you need to look at the practical issues galleries face. The U.S. doesn't have straightforward temporary import schemes like those in the UK or EU. Traditionally, most galleries importing items into the U.S. for fairs relied on a mechanism called Duty & Tax drawback: you import the items, pay duties and taxes (D&Ts) upfront, and reclaim them later for unsold items you export back home.
This has now become significantly more difficult from a cash-flow standpoint, particularly for high-value items. Galleries have to front at least a 10% baseline duty, and if the pieces contain steel or aluminum, there's an additional tariff on top of that. This further increases costs, making pieces notably more expensive for buyers.
Additionally, the Duty & Tax drawback process typically costs around $1,000 to $1,500 in customs broker fees per shipment, adding yet another expense for galleries.
When you add these increased import costs to shipping expenses and already steep fair fees (plus a less active market overall), the risk of a poor return on investment becomes very real. Many of our clients have already told us they're reconsidering their participation in U.S. fairs because the financial risks no longer seem justified in some cases.
Of course, this could change quite quickly depending on how the situation evolves, but this is what we're hearing at the moment.
–
Now, let me take a moment to clarify a few points and explain why certain import solutions aren't well suited to art fairs:
Let's first clear up a common misconception around continuous bonds. Although they're called "bonds," continuous bonds don't exempt you from paying import duties and taxes. They only simplify the administrative process for definitive imports, making it easier for frequent importers who regularly bring items into the U.S. permanently. You still have to pay:
In other words, continuous bonds streamline paperwork and slightly reduce administrative costs for permanent imports, but they do nothing to alleviate the substantial upfront costs of duties. They’re thus not a viable solution for art fairs.
This mechanism is similar to the ATA carnet and is primarily used by museums for temporary exhibitions. Like a carnet, TIB does not permit items to be sold and remain in the U.S. Any item sold while under a TIB must first be exported, then re-imported definitively—making it impractical for commercial fairs.
ATA carnets allow temporary importation without paying duties upfront, but only if the imported items aren't sold. If an artwork imported with an ATA carnet is sold during a fair, it must leave the U.S. first and then be re-imported as a definitive import, making ATA carnets often unsuitable for typical art-fair transactions.
In short, none of these options fully address the specific challenges galleries face when exhibiting and selling artworks or design objects at U.S. art fairs. This brings us back to the fundamental issues caused by tariffs, particularly regarding the significant cash-flow strain associated with paying duties upfront and then waiting to recover them through the Duty & Tax drawback process.
Yes, there have been recent developments regarding possible retaliation targeting U.S.-made artworks, notably from the UK and Canada.
Earlier this month, the UK government published an extensive list of potential retaliatory tariffs that explicitly included artworks: paintings, drawings, sculptures (under 100 years old), photographs, and prints. Canada initially had gone a step further, imposing a 25% tariff specifically on U.S.-made artworks before rolling it back.
However, despite these moves, I personally don’t think these retaliatory tariffs are a realistic long-term risk for the art market. Historically, artworks have been mostly exempt from trade conflicts, primarily because they're culturally sensitive and represent a negligible portion of overall trade balances. My impression is that the UK's proposed measures are mostly symbolic and intended to leverage negotiations rather than seriously harm the art trade. As for Canada, I believe it's more of a political gesture than an indication of lasting policy.
That said, this introduces a degree of uncertainty that the market doesn't welcome, and we'll continue to monitor these developments closely.
When importing objects into the U.S., defining precisely what counts as an artwork isn't always straightforward. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses specific criteria to determine whether an item can be classified as an original artwork under Heading 9701 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Such classification significantly affects import duties, as original artworks are duty-free, while furniture or decorative objects typically incur duties up to approximately 6%.
Key criteria for an Item to qualify as an artwork (HTSUS Heading 9701):
Originality and uniqueness:
Artistic intent and value:
Market perception:
Furniture, especially sculptural or design-focused pieces (like those created by François-Xavier or Claude Lalanne) can present classification challenges because they blur the line between utility and art.
When CBP encounters such objects, they carefully assess:
Primary purpose (artistic vs. functional):
Artist's intention and documentation:
Market Context and Recognition:
For a Lalanne sculpture, like a "sheep bench":
If imported as fine art:
If imported as furniture or with insufficient documentation:
CBP rulings (e.g., NY N121718 or NY I81511) reinforce these criteria, emphasizing the importance of supporting documentation. Therefore, dealers and galleries importing sculptural furniture should be meticulous in demonstrating the artwork classification through letters from artists or galleries, catalogues raisonnés, auction records, or authoritative exhibition materials.
Given that successful customs exemption hinges on precise documentation, the importance of getting your paperwork absolutely right cannot be overstated, especially in this new, more complicated tariff environment.
Here’s what best-in-class import documentation should look like in 2025, along with how galleries can proactively reduce risk, keeping in mind that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers always retain final discretion.
This is essential and often misunderstood. The country of origin is not the same as the shipping origin. It refers to the country where the artwork was physically created. Your import paperwork (specifically the Commercial Invoice and Packing List) must prominently and unambiguously state the correct country of origin.
For example: "Artwork: Oil painting by [Artist Name], created in France (Country of Origin). Shipped from the United Kingdom."
To ensure eligibility for exemption, documentation should clearly use language aligning with the official definitions in Chapters 97 (artworks) and 49 (photography, prints, books) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
Make sure to include:
For example: "Original bronze sculpture by François-Xavier Lalanne, created in 1980. Limited edition numbered 2 of 8."
For works that might fall into grey areas, like sculptures with functional aspects (e.g., Lalanne), documentation should explicitly emphasize artistic intention:
Explicitly cite relevant tariff exemptions clearly on your commercial invoice.
For example: "Classified under HTS Chapter 97 – exempt under 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)."
While CBP has the final say, clearly referencing these classifications and legal exemptions demonstrates due diligence and can facilitate smoother customs clearance.
Given the complexities of the current tariff environment, precise, detailed, and thorough documentation is crucial for successful customs exemption. Galleries can significantly reduce risk by explicitly stating the correct country of origin, using precise and consistent artwork descriptions, clearly documenting artistic intent (especially for functional artworks), and explicitly referencing HTS classifications and applicable exemptions.
Additionally, consulting experienced customs brokers, proactively preparing extensive supporting documentation, and maintaining transparent communication will further safeguard your imports, especially given that final discretion always remains with Customs and Border Protection officers.
In the short term, I wouldn't recommend a fundamental shift in your overall strategy, primarily because I don't think the current tariff environment will hold beyond the current 90-day period. My view is that, following this round of negotiations, we’ll likely see a progressive normalization of trade relations.
However, there are two key considerations worth keeping in mind right now:
Immediate inventory adjustments: Temporarily shifting your sourcing strategy to focus either on artworks, artworks with a functional value (which currently remain exempt from tariffs), or design items that do not contain aluminum or steel could help sustain your sales and minimize tariff exposure in the short term.
Contingency planning if tariffs become permanent: If the situation does crystallize into a longer-term reality, I’d recommend two strategic adjustments:
The new 125% tariff on Chinese-origin imports significantly impacts galleries dealing specifically with antiques from China, as these goods now face cumulative duties totaling 152.5% (0% base duty + 7.5% initial Trump-era tariff + 20% fentanyl sanctions + 125% reciprocal tariff). This steep increase substantially raises the cost and complexity of importing antiques, like traditional ceramics, and creates serious financial burdens for galleries reliant on these imports.
However, contemporary artworks are exempt from the 125% reciprocal tariff. These artworks now incur a total duty of 27.5% (0% base + 7.5% Trump-era tariff + 20% fentanyl sanctions), compared to only 7.5% prior to the fentanyl sanctions. For instance, previously, importing a contemporary painting valued at $350,000 incurred approximately $26,250 in duties. With the additional fentanyl sanctions, this has increased significantly to approximately $96,250, creating substantial upfront financial strain and administrative complexity.
China isn't a core export region for Convelio, but we have heard from some specialized dealers that they are redirecting their attention to clients in the Middle East rather than the US at the moment.
In my view, the tariff situation is ultimately headed toward normalization, despite the current turbulence. The recent escalation with China (particularly the steep 125% tariff on antiques) reflects heightened geopolitical tensions rather than a sustainable trade policy.
Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell has emphasized increasing uncertainty and downside risks tied to tariffs and trade tensions, noting a deceleration in growth. Coupled with concerns about potential retaliation from significant trade partners like the EU, the current approach appears economically unsustainable in the long run.
Once the broader macroeconomic conditions stabilize and market confidence returns, I expect a gradual easing of these protectionist measures, resulting in a more predictable and normalized trade environment.
Now, while I do anticipate country-specific tariffs becoming a more permanent fixture in the regulatory landscape, I firmly believe artworks, with the notable exception of those originating from China, will remain largely exempt. Historically, artworks have generally been shielded from such punitive tariffs due to their cultural value and lower impact on industrial trade balances. Once the broader macroeconomic situation stabilizes (and particularly as stock markets rebound) I expect a more predictable and normalized trade environment for the art market.
Nevertheless, galleries should prudently prepare for a scenario where uncertainty persists longer than expected. Practically speaking, this means beginning to diversify client locations beyond markets heavily impacted by current tariff policies (shifting greater attention toward the Middle East or other regions less entangled in trade conflicts). Additionally, for dealers specializing in antiques or design objects, it would be wise to proactively source items not made of aluminium or steel.