Commerce Releases Report on MTB Petitions With CBP Input on Adminstrability of Duty Suspensions
The Commerce Department released its report on miscellaneous tariff bill (MTB) petitions (here). The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 (see 1605200041) requires Commerce to send the report to the International Trade Commission, and Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees this week. The report details domestic production of petitioned articles and whether domestic producers object to specific petitions, any technical changes needed and possible areas of overlap between MTB petitions and U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
CBP reviewed petitions and provided Commerce with comments on whether each petition includes an administrable article description and eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading. Many of the article descriptions included in the petitions would, if implemented, require further verification by CBP, it said. Importers should be prepared to collect, maintain and provide additional proof to CBP that an article qualifies for duty suspension or reduction, the agency said. Such proof might include "physical samples of the imported article, product literature, transactional records, manufacturing flowcharts, independent laboratory reports, and any other information necessary to enable CBP to determine the identity and proper tariff classification of the imported article.”
Laboratory analysis may also be necessary to verify whether article descriptions properly describe the imported articles, particularly textile and chemical products, CBP said. Petitions for many of those goods “propose unique chemical or physical criteria that would require CBP Office of Field Operations personnel to consult with CBP Field Laboratories to properly identify and confirm,” the report says. In preparing its submission to Commerce, CBP incorporated input from national import specialists to determine whether proposed duty suspensions or reductions could be implemented upon importation, and if not, whether technical changes might be made to allow for administration of the petition.
The section of the report linking some petitioned articles with AD/CV orders is not meant to definitively describe determinations of overlap, which is precluded by “the specific nature of both the article descriptions in the petitions as well as the scope of AD and CVD orders themselves,” the report said. “However, this information has been presented to Congress in past Miscellaneous Tariff Bill reviews, and Commerce believes its inclusion is important for a more comprehensive understanding of the petitions.” Commerce noted a “small number” of articles for which it was unable to make a domestic production determination because of erroneous or incomplete petition information. Not included is information “related to any subsequently modified article descriptions, including any modifications that may be recommended by the USITC in its forthcoming preliminary report,” Commerce said.