The Obama administration on Dec. 15 filed a World Trade Organization challenge against China’s employment of tariff-rate quotas for rice, wheat and corn, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said (here). Chinese quotas for these commodities were valued at more than $7 billion last year, but USTR claims that China only filled about half the total value of its listed quotas. “China’s TRQ policies breach their WTO commitments and limit opportunities for U.S. farmers to export competitively priced, high-quality grains to customers in China,” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement. USTR alleges that China’s administration of quotas for those products is “opaque” and “unpredictable,” and is inconsistent with China’s WTO Accession Protocol and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Although China annually announces the opening of tariff-rate quotas, its application criteria and procedures are unclear, and China doesn’t provide meaningful information on how it administers the quotas, USTR said.
While the president doesn’t have express constitutional authority to modify tariffs, several congressionally approved statutes give the White House authority to change tariffs based on a findings that other countries’ exports to the U.S. pose a threat, according to a recently released Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (here). But such delegations of power usually accompany clearly defined conditions and often include time restrictions, the report said.
The following new requests for antidumping and countervailing duty scope rulings were filed with the Commerce Department since International Trade Today's last update:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 5-11:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 5-9 in case they were missed.
China on Dec. 12 filed a World Trade Organization complaint requesting dispute consultations over what it says are “special calculation methodologies” employed by the U.S. in antidumping duty cases, the WTO said (here). Though the complaint was not immediately available, China is challenging the U.S.' continued application of non-market economy status, said Stimson Center distinguished fellow Bill Reinsch. China argues a provision in its WTO membership agreement requires countries to treat it as a market economy, and use actual prices and costs instead of artificial prices and costs based on third-country data, beginning on Dec. 11, 2016. The U.S. will not consider China a “market economy” for AD duty purposes, and will continue to apply alternative AD methodologies, as appropriate, to ensure “accurate calculations” in proceedings involving China, an Obama administration official told International Trade Today.
An industry coalition petitioned the Federal Maritime Commission to issue new rules preventing common carriers and marine terminal operators from charging demurrage, detention and per diem fees during events beyond the control of shippers, including port congestion or disruption, bad weather and delays spurred by government action, according to the American Association of Footwear and Apparel (here). The no-charge period would start whenever a circumstance out of the control of shippers, receivers or motor carriers precludes a marine terminal or ocean carrier from tendering cargo or receiving equipment for delivery, according to the proposal. The petition was filed by the Coalition for Fair Port Practices, a group of 25 trade associations including the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA), the AAFA and the National Retail Federation.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 28 - Dec. 4:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 28 - Dec. 2 in case they were missed.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 declined to dismiss a penalty case brought by the government against an importer’s chief executive officer that claimed he was improperly notified. The CEO, Julio Lorza, said CBP only included his company, International Trading Services (ITS), on pre-penalty and penalty notices of Section 592 violations related to entries of sugar. CIT, citing previous cases on the subject, found (here) that CBP is not required to name a company’s corporate officers in a penalty notice for the government to bring a case against them, and that Lorza in any case knew he could be held responsible.