The American Institute for International Steel and two companies asked the Court of International Trade on July 19 to immediately stop the enforcement of Section 232 tariffs, AIIS said in a news release. A summary judgment is necessary to prevent further monetary harm to steel importers, as well as "the port authorities, customs brokers, insurance companies, and logistics companies that are members of AIIS and that derive significant portions of their revenue from their handling of imported steel," AIIS said in its filing.
CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan highlighted some planned additional benefits to participation in the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, in prepared remarks for the July 18 Senate Finance International Trade Subcommittee hearing on U.S. ports and trade. The ongoing transitioning of the Importer Self-Assessment program into CTPAT Trade Compliance "includes the extensive development of new benefits," he said. CBP has a loose deadline of the end of 2018 for transitioning ISA participants into CTPAT (see 1709070010), and a phased rollout of new CTPAT standards is expected to begin in October (see 1806070058).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 9-15:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called the White House's approach to tariffs "misguided and reckless," and said if the Trump administration "continues forward" with tariffs as a way to protect U.S. manufacturing, "I will work to advance trade legislation to curtail presidential trade authority." He said during a speech on the Senate floor July 17 that he is sympathetic to the effort (see 1807120023) from Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to rescind steel and aluminum tariffs and prevent tariffs on autos and auto parts, and he is discussing legislative options with his colleagues.
With the publication of the Office of U.S. Trade Representative’s notice in Wednesday’s Federal Register on procedures for requesting exclusions from Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 1807080001), docket USTR-2018-0025 for posting such requests became active in the regulations.gov portal. No requests were posted yet by our Friday deadline. Exclusion requests are due by Oct. 9, and if granted will apply for a year retroactively to July 6, said the notice. Once a request is posted, the public will have 14 days to file responses to that request, it said. After that 14-day period, “interested persons” will have seven days to reply to those responses, it said. Though Oct. 9 is the deadline for the exclusion requests, “international trade team” lawyers at BakerHostetler are “advising clients to file as soon as possible in anticipation of the large administrative backlog that they expect.” Though the Trump administration’s threat to impose 10 percent tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports (see 1807110034) “doesn't necessarily raise the risk of an all-out trade war, the tariffs would affect some industries and individual corporate borrowers,” said S&P Global Friday. Together with the 25 percent tariffs enacted July 6 on $34 billion in Chinese imports and the proposal to impose tariffs on another $16 billion in goods, “the total amount of $250 billion now represents about half the value of China's annual exports to the U.S.,” it said. The absence of an immediate “tit-for-tat” retaliatory response from China “lends hope to the belief that China-U.S. trade negotiations aren't completely off the table,” said S&P. “We are obviously not sanguine about the risk. Our current base-case assumption is that the tariffs, if imposed, will not likely greatly affect either economy. However, they would affect some industries and individual corporations.” The U.S.-China friction already is contributing to “jitters in the financial markets and is coloring business investment decisions,” said S&P. If China wants to retaliate with tariffs on U.S. goods, it “can’t match” the $200 billion figure because American imports to China totaled only $130 billion last year, it said: “Should China opt to pursue non-tariff actions that affect services and investments, it could damage global business and consumer confidence, investment prospects, and growth.”
With the publication of the Office of U.S. Trade Representative’s notice in Wednesday’s Federal Register on procedures for requesting exclusions from Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 1807080001), docket USTR-2018-0025 for posting such requests became active in the regulations.gov portal. No requests were posted yet by our Friday deadline. Exclusion requests are due by Oct. 9, and if granted will apply for a year retroactively to July 6, said the notice. Once a request is posted, the public will have 14 days to file responses to that request, it said. After that 14-day period, “interested persons” will have seven days to reply to those responses, it said. Though Oct. 9 is the deadline for the exclusion requests, “international trade team” lawyers at BakerHostetler are “advising clients to file as soon as possible in anticipation of the large administrative backlog that they expect.” Though the Trump administration’s threat to impose 10 percent tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports (see 1807110034) “doesn't necessarily raise the risk of an all-out trade war, the tariffs would affect some industries and individual corporate borrowers,” said S&P Global Friday. Together with the 25 percent tariffs enacted July 6 on $34 billion in Chinese imports and the proposal to impose tariffs on another $16 billion in goods, “the total amount of $250 billion now represents about half the value of China's annual exports to the U.S.,” it said. The absence of an immediate “tit-for-tat” retaliatory response from China “lends hope to the belief that China-U.S. trade negotiations aren't completely off the table,” said S&P. “We are obviously not sanguine about the risk. Our current base-case assumption is that the tariffs, if imposed, will not likely greatly affect either economy. However, they would affect some industries and individual corporations.” The U.S.-China friction already is contributing to “jitters in the financial markets and is coloring business investment decisions,” said S&P. If China wants to retaliate with tariffs on U.S. goods, it “can’t match” the $200 billion figure because American imports to China totaled only $130 billion last year, it said: “Should China opt to pursue non-tariff actions that affect services and investments, it could damage global business and consumer confidence, investment prospects, and growth.”
With the publication of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s notice in the July 11 Federal Register on procedures for requesting exclusions from Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 1807100049), docket USTR-2018-0025 for posting such requests became active in the regulations.gov portal. No requests were posted yet as of International Trade Today's deadline. Exclusion requests are due by Oct. 9, and if granted will apply for a year retroactively to July 6, the notice said. Though Oct. 9 is the deadline for the exclusion requests, international trade lawyers at BakerHostetler are advising "clients to file as soon as possible in anticipation of the large administrative backlog that they expect,” the law firm said.
With the publication of the Office of U.S. Trade Representative’s notice in Wednesday’s Federal Register on procedures for requesting exclusions from Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 1807080001), docket USTR-2018-0025 for posting such requests became active in the regulations.gov portal. No requests were posted yet by our Friday deadline. Exclusion requests are due by Oct. 9, and if granted will apply for a year retroactively to July 6, said the notice. Once a request is posted, the public will have 14 days to file responses to that request, it said. After that 14-day period, “interested persons” will have seven days to reply to those responses, it said. Though Oct. 9 is the deadline for the exclusion requests, “international trade team” lawyers at BakerHostetler are “advising clients to file as soon as possible in anticipation of the large administrative backlog that they expect.” Though the Trump administration’s threat to impose 10 percent tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports (see 1807110034) “doesn't necessarily raise the risk of an all-out trade war, the tariffs would affect some industries and individual corporate borrowers,” said S&P Global Friday. Together with the 25 percent tariffs enacted July 6 on $34 billion in Chinese imports and the proposal to impose tariffs on another $16 billion in goods, “the total amount of $250 billion now represents about half the value of China's annual exports to the U.S.,” it said. The absence of an immediate “tit-for-tat” retaliatory response from China “lends hope to the belief that China-U.S. trade negotiations aren't completely off the table,” said S&P. “We are obviously not sanguine about the risk. Our current base-case assumption is that the tariffs, if imposed, will not likely greatly affect either economy. However, they would affect some industries and individual corporations.” The U.S.-China friction already is contributing to “jitters in the financial markets and is coloring business investment decisions,” said S&P. If China wants to retaliate with tariffs on U.S. goods, it “can’t match” the $200 billion figure because American imports to China totaled only $130 billion last year, it said: “Should China opt to pursue non-tariff actions that affect services and investments, it could damage global business and consumer confidence, investment prospects, and growth.”
The retaliatory tariffs from the European Union, China, Canada, Mexico and Turkey in response to U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are being challenged at the World Trade Organization by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. "The U.S. steel and aluminum duties imposed by President Trump earlier this year are justified under international agreements the United States and its trading partners have approved," the USTR said in a July 16 news release. "However, retaliatory duties on U.S. exports imposed by China, the EU, Canada, Mexico and Turkey are completely without justification under international rules.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 2-8: