More CBP scrutiny of first sale transactions has followed an increase in the use of first sale valuations in recent months, law firm Sandler Travis said in a blog post. The growth in first sale valuations, which allows importers to value goods at the price sold from a manufacturer to a middle man, is one result of the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China, the firm said. "At a time when volatility in trade policy has left some traditional methods of lowering costs unavailable and is threatening to eliminate others, importers are continuing to use the first sale rule to save millions of dollars in import duties each year," said the firm, which advertises its first sale services in the post.
Section 301 Tariffs
Section 301 Tariffs are levied under the Trade Act of 1974 which grants the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) authority to investigate and take action to protect U.S. rights from trade agreements and respond to foreign trade practices. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides statutory means allowing the United States to impose sanctions on foreign countries violating U.S. trade agreements or engaging in acts that are “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” and burdensome to U.S. commerce. Prior to 1995, the U.S. frequently used Section 301 to eliminate trade barriers and pressure other countries to open markets to U.S. goods.
The founding of the World Trade Organization in 1995 created an enforceable dispute settlement mechanism, reducing U.S. use of Section 301. The Trump Administration began using Section 301 in 2018 to unilaterally enforce tariffs on countries and industries it deemed unfair to U.S. industries. The Trump Administration adopted the policy shift to close what it deemed a persistent "trade gap" between the U.S. and foreign governments that it said disadvantaged U.S. firms. Additionally, it pointed to alleged weaknesses in the WTO trade dispute settlement process to justify many of its tariff actions—particularly against China. The administration also cited failures in previous trade agreements to enhance foreign market access for U.S. firms and workers.
The Trump Administration launched a Section 301 investigation into Chinese trade policies in August 2017. Following the investigation, President Trump ordered the USTR to take five tariff actions between 2018 and 2019. Almost three quarters of U.S. imports from China were subject to Section 301 tariffs, which ranged from 15% to 25%. The U.S. and China engaged in negotiations resulting in the “U.S.-China Phase One Trade Agreement”, signed in January 2020.
The Biden Administration took steps in 2021 to eliminate foreign policies subject to Section 301 investigations. The administration has extended and reinstated many of the tariffs enacted during the Trump administration but is conducting a review of all Section 301 actions against China.
A legislative effort from Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., to expand the president's ability to impose new tariffs (see 1901160012) is a troubling prospect for retailers, according to the National Retail Federation. NRF Senior Vice President for Government Relations David French said Congress “should be working to protect local communities from an escalated trade war” brought on by the Trump administration’s Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports and China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Duffy’s “misguided” legislation “would do the exact opposite, giving the executive branch limitless power to raise taxes in the form of tariffs,” French said. “Congress has already ceded far too much of its clear constitutional authority over tariffs, and we are witnessing the consequences unfold across the country. The idea that Congress would make matters even worse by further abdicating its role on trade policy is simply unconscionable.” Duffy's bill would give the president the ability to raise U.S. tariffs to match other countries' levels without having to justify the move through a safeguard or national security investigation.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 7-11 in case they were missed.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and nine other Democratic senators who wrote to him in October (see 1810230020) that there are no plans to allow for exemptions on the third round of Section 301 tariffs at the current rate. Those tariffs, now set at 10 percent on about 5,700 tariff lines that accounted for about $200 billion in Chinese imports in 2017, will jump to 25 percent March 2 if no deal is reached with China. Lighthizer said in his response, sent Jan. 11, that an exemption process will be implemented if the tariffs increase to 25 percent. A White House official had previously said there would be no exemptions for the 10 percent list (see 1812030042).
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reiterated that he will evaluate the president's authority to impose tariffs under Section 232, saying, "I do not believe that we should alienate our allies with tariffs disguised as national security protections." Grassley released a statement Jan. 9 on his priorities for the new Congress. He also said, "I’m not fond of the Section 301 tariffs on products from China, but I agree with the reasons they’ve been applied. I’ll continue to engage with the Administration on the ongoing trade dispute with China in hopes that negotiations will result in a change in China’s discriminatory policies and practices and an easing of tariffs and tensions. The World Trade Organization is also on his to-do list. "I have great interest in reforming and strengthening the WTO, which is a clearinghouse for our rules-based international trading system. I plan to work closely with the administration and our allies to strengthen the ability of the WTO to more effectively meet the demands of our global economy."
Continued economic "prosperity" is no "foregone conclusion” amid the broadly held concern about the impact to the U.S. economy of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and “corresponding retaliation against U.S. exports, said Americans for Free Trade in a Jan. 9 “welcome” letter to newly elected and returning members of Congress. “We agree that China must be held to account for its violations of our trade laws and the international trade obligations all nations share,” said the coalition, whose 150 members include multiple associations of customs brokers. “Imposition of a tariff of up to 25 percent on $250 billion worth of China products -- and the threat to impose a similar duty on $267 billion more of such products -- will not remedy the situation. We continue to see stories on a daily basis about companies, both large and small, who are being harmed by these tariffs.” The coalition urges Congress to “exercise its oversight role on trade policy matters to prevent further harm to U.S. workers, consumers, and families that will result from both the existing and proposed tariffs,” it said.
The packaging and dilution of perfume and cologne in China don't result in a change to the country of origin, CBP said in a Nov. 28 ruling (NY N301656). The colognes and perfumes therefore are not subject to the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China, the agency ruled. The ruling request came from Fantasia Accessories through Grunfeld Desiderio lawyer Kevin Leonard.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 31 - Jan. 4 in case they were missed.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for 2018 in case they were missed.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 24-28 in case they were missed.