International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for July 23-27 in case they were missed.
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.
The U.S. trade relationship with China "significantly impacts” Consumer Technology Association member companies, large and small, because they “rely on the global supply chain -- including China -- to conduct business,” said Sage Chandler, CTA vice president-international trade. She asked to appear at Aug. 20-23 public hearings to oppose 10 percent Section 301 tariffs proposed in a July 10 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notice. CTA members identified 302 tariff lines of Chinese imports in the notice, accounting for more than $109 billion in value, for which 10 percent duties “would be detrimental to their business,” Chandler said in her July 27 filing. CTA is still gathering “relevant data” on the tariffs’ possible impact on members, and the numbers she cited may need to be “updated” by the time written comments are due Aug. 17, she said.
Element Electronics wants a slot to appear at public hearings Aug. 20-23 to urge removal of two Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifications of Chinese LCD panel imports (HTS 9013.80.90 and 8529.90.13) from the list of proposed 10 percent Section 301 tariffs, the company said in a filing posted July 26 in docket USTR-2018-0026. Element is “the sole U.S. mass assembler” of LCD TVs, producing about 2.5 million sets a year at its plant in Winnsboro, South Carolina, and is among the local county's top 20 employers, the company said. The Internet Association also wants to testify at the hearings, for the removal of 22 tariff lines “that cover products internet companies use to function on a daily basis,” including “control or adapter units for automatic data processing machines” and other components, it said in a filing posted July 26. Imposing new duties on the 22 tariff lines “would not help to correct China's practices, but would cause disproportionate economic harm to American internet companies,” the association said. July 27 is the deadline for filing requests to appear at the hearings.
It's not easy or cheap relocating semiconductor packaging plants from China to other countries of origin to avoid tariffs, Intel said in comments posted July 25 in docket USTR-2018-0018 opposing the proposed 25 percent Section 301 duties on Chinese semiconductor imports. Many tech interests argued this week for removing Chinese semiconductor imports from the tariffs list because most semiconductors the U.S. imports are made in the U.S., shipped to China for final, low-end assembly, testing and packaging (ATP), and then shipped back to the U.S. (see 1807240045). Imposing those duties would require U.S. semiconductor manufacturers to pay tariffs on their own products, they said. Though U.S. firms can limit or avoid their exposure to Chinese tariffs by moving their ATP plants elsewhere, "no rational U.S. semiconductor company is going to incur the very high costs and other risks raised by relocating an ATP facility in China with an already established ecosystem to a green field site in another country,” Intel said. It estimates it would cost anywhere from $650 million to $875 million to move an ATP plant out of China, “depending on its size and where it would be relocated,” it said.
The chemicals industry deserves to be spared from a $16 billion tranche of Section 301 tariffs, Ed Brzytwa, the director of international trade for the American Chemistry Council, said during a July 25 hearing on the tariffs. After testimony from more than a half-dozen businesses that import, manufacture or use imported chemical inputs, he explained that the U.S. chemicals industry has a cost advantage over China now because of cheap natural gas. Because China imports more than $5 billion a year in chemical compounds and plastics from the U.S., the industry's a natural target for retaliation. That -- paired with the fact that many chemical and plastic manufacturers need Chinese inputs -- means that putting chemicals on the list is doubly painful.
Pier 1 Imports does not expect major ramifications from proposed 10 percent Section 301 tariffs on a wide range of goods from China (see 1807110050), the company said in a news release. "Consistent with recent years, approximately 59% of the Company’s fiscal 2019 net sales are expected to be derived from merchandise produced in China," the company said. "Of that amount, approximately half is expected to consist of product classes subject to the proposed tariff." While Pier 1 is looking at "strategies to mitigate the impact of the proposed tariff, including collaborative efforts with its vendor partners," it "does not expect financial results in fiscal 2019 to be materially affected," the company said. Still "there can be no assurance as to the final scope of the proposed tariff or the course or timing of trade negotiations," it said.
The top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Trade is trying to force the administration to disclose information about its decision-making process on tariffs. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., would have to get the House Speaker to bring the resolution up for a vote, in addition to securing a majority vote. The resolution asks for documents, spreadsheets and slide presentations that explain why the president chose a global 25 percent tariff on steel after the Commerce Department gave a global 24 percent tariff as one option, and why he made the aluminum tariff 10 percent, rather than 7.7 percent, as laid out by Commerce. It also asks for information on how the administration intends to help exporters hurt in the trade war, and its strategy on resolving the problems laid out in the Section 301 report, either through multilateral action or through negotiations with China.
The Consumer Technology Association wants the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to remove 54 tariff lines from the list of imports from China targeted for a second tranche of 25 percent Trade Act Section 301 duties, said Sage Chandler, vice president-international trade, in comments filed July 23 in docket USTR-2018-0018. Chandler also testified at the USTR’s public hearing on July 24. The 54 tariff lines were well more than double the 22 Harmonized Tariff Schedule product codes that Chandler said CTA members had identified nearly four weeks ago for exclusion from the new list of duties (see 1807100025). Tariffs on the proposed products “will harm the very industries they seek to protect, all while failing to influence China's behavior or help the administration's stated goal of eliminating China’s discriminatory trade practices,” Chandler said in her latest comments.
More than 20 businesses and trade groups -- the first set of more than 80 scheduled to testify -- told the Section 301 investigation panel on July 24 that including their imports on the tariff list of $16 billion in Chinese products will lead to higher consumer prices, lower profits, abandoned expansion plans or worse. For Jane Hardy, CEO of Brinly-Hardy Company in Kentucky, having Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8432.4200, fertilizer spreaders, added to the list is an existential threat. With the tariff on steel, her family-owned company, founded in 1839, began paying 25 percent to 37 percent more for the metal, even though she'd always bought domestic steel. Then, with the first tranche of Section 301, Chinese wheels and hardware that her Indiana factory uses as it builds equipment were taxed at 25 percent.
Maritime and shipping container companies, a major trucking company and companies big and small whose livelihoods depend on Chinese imports will testify across a day and a half of hearings to help the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative determine which imports should be taxed to bring the list up to $50 billion in goods (see 1806210029). So far, $34 billion worth of imports are being taxed at 25 percent (see 1806150003). The USTR released a schedule of witnesses for the hearings, which will begin July 24 at 9:30 a.m. at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington.