In 1881 American customs officials stopped a suspicious shipment of sugar, believing its colour had been altered. Under the prevailing tariff code, the darker the colour, the lower the grade and the lighter the levy. A chemical test confirmed the officials were correct. The case went all the way to America’s Supreme Court, which determined that the importer could in fact alter merchandise so as to lower the duty rate, and therefore had done nothing wrong.

Not a week goes by without new threats from Donald Trump to slap new duties on imports into America. Wide-ranging tariffs risk becoming “existential” for companies, says Edward Steiner of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, a law firm. For many, relocating production to America—Mr Trump’s desired outcome—remains prohibitively expensive. Companies are therefore likely to explore more creative approaches instead.

In 1881 American customs officials stopped a suspicious shipment of sugar, believing its colour had been altered. Under the prevailing tariff code, the darker the colour, the lower the grade and the lighter the levy. A chemical test confirmed the officials were correct. The case went all the way to America’s Supreme Court, which determined that the importer could in fact alter merchandise so as to lower the duty rate, and therefore had done nothing wrong.

Not a week goes by without new threats from Donald Trump to slap new duties on imports into America. Wide-ranging tariffs risk becoming “existential” for companies, says Edward Steiner of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, a law firm. For many, relocating production to America—Mr Trump’s desired outcome—remains prohibitively expensive. Companies are therefore likely to explore more creative approaches instead.

Those hoping to dust off their playbooks from Mr Trump’s first term will probably be disappointed. Exemptions from duties, such as the one that Apple, maker of the iPhone, was granted in 2019, may be harder to get this time; Mr Trump has promised “no exceptions”. Likewise, relocating production from China, on whose goods Mr Trump has imposed an additional 10% tariff, to places such as South-East Asia may not do much to shield firms from duties, particularly if Mr Trump follows through with his threat of applying reciprocal levies. Companies could move operations to Thailand or Malaysia but end up having the same conversations in 18 months, says Dave Townsend of Dorsey & Whitney, another law firm.

Some bosses may look instead to clever workarounds. Start with “tariff engineering”, which includes tweaking products to change their official classification, as the sugar manufacturer did. Duties can vary significantly even when merchandise appears similar, and “therein lies the opportunity,” notes Lawrence Friedman of Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, one more law firm.

Companies may take inspiration from Converse, a footwear brand that over a decade ago altered the design of various models of its Chuck Taylor All Star shoes, which are imported from countries such as Vietnam, to incur lower duties. By adding a layer of felt on about half the insole Converse was able to reclassify the canvas sneakers as slippers, which face a tariff of about 6%, compared with as much as 48% for other footwear. Apparel manufacturers such as Columbia Sportswear have similarly added pockets below the waist on shirts, t-shirts and blouses to move them into a product category for which tariffs are lower.

Another form of tariff engineering involves fiddling with where a product ostensibly comes from. Consider the cable harnesses in Hyundai’s cars, made up of wires, plastic coverings and connectors. American customs officials have deemed these to be made in South Korea. Yet although the raw material is manufactured there, most of the production process happens in China, with the finished harness then sent back to South Korea for testing and packaging. Designing supply chains so that just enough production happens in a location that benefits from lower tariffs is cheaper than relocating manufacturing in its entirety, and allows firms to be more nimble when new levies come in.

If none of this is possible, then another option is to seek to reduce the amount of the tariff to be paid. The “first-sale” provision, created by a court ruling in 1988, allows importers to value goods based on the price charged by the manufacturer, rather than the higher ones charged by middlemen along the way. To preserve cash, companies can also delay the payment of duties. In a note sent to clients this month, Maersk, a shipping giant, advised using “bonded warehouses” that allow companies to store goods without paying duties until they are sold, as well as “temporary import bonds” for goods that are set to be re-exported.

Of course, Mr Trump may eventually stop these manoeuvres, too. In 2008 America’s customs agency proposed scrapping the first-sale rule, though lawyers fended off the threat. Still, even if some loopholes are closed, companies are bound to find others. Ultimately, says a trade lawyer, “people want stuff, and they’ll get it one way or another.” Expect plenty of ingenuity in the years ahead.

To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.