A lawyer who has represented clients whose goods were detained over suspicion of forced labor says the new document laying out the strategy on enforcing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act is not earth-shattering.
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 chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee highlighted in her opening remarks Congress' directive to the U.S. trade representative to establish an exclusion process for Section 301 tariffs. But when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., tried to ask USTR Katherine Tai about how her office is "working to comply with this directive," Tai evaded the question and talked about the deliberations in the administration on whether there should be a partial rollback of the tariffs on the vast majority of Chinese imports.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 13-19:
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said that he wants to get the conference negotiations done for the China package, because the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) has "some important trade aspects."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held in a June 16 opinion that window covering manufacturer Springs Window Fashions did not illegally fire customs broker Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh over her position that the company had to pay Section 301 China tariffs. Judges Diane Sykes, Michael Brennan and Michael Scudder said that the record evidence does not support Lam's position that she was fired in retaliation (Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh v. Springs Window Fashions, 7th Cir. #21-2665).
The Alliance for American Manufacturing told the administration that it's "absurd" to blame Section 301 tariffs for inflation, given they started years before inflation began to rise. "U.S. consumers would see little to no benefit from tariff roll backs and any erosion of tariffs will benefit China’s Communist Party and China’s manufacturing sector, which would make up the difference by increasing its prices," the group wrote. It said that all tariffs should remain. "AAM strongly supports allowing USTR to continue its fact-based exclusion process without congressional mandates or any other political interference that predetermines an outcome. While an accessible and transparent exclusion process is essential for trade enforcement actions, unwarranted tariff relief may very well signal the demise of a U.S. company that is seeking to establish a market foothold or one that has reinvented itself to fill gaps in our domestic supply chains," it wrote.
The National Council of Textile Organizations, the Narrow Fabrics Institute and the U.S. Industrial Fabrics Institute told the administration in response comments that if 7.5% Section 301 tariffs on apparel are lifted, it could risk "reversing once-in-a-lifetime nearshoring trends."
While several key players portrayed negotiations as active on the trade title, House Ways and Means ranking member Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said: "We've had virtually no discussions on the trade provisions in the China conference. We're eager to get talking about it. The trade provisions are not going to be easy. I do think there's common ground, but the clock's ticking and we have a lot of work to do, and the sooner we get to it, the better."
Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., who's been a defender of trade liberalization, introduced a bill that requires the Treasury Department, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission to assess whether the Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, safeguard tariffs and the expiration of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program have contributed to inflation.
The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said he doesn't think the chatter among lobbyists that the trade title could be dropped from a compromise China package has any merit (see 2205310033). Lobbyists were reacting to a leaked timeline that said the negotiations should be finished, and the new legislative language done, by June 21. The House is scheduled to leave Washington for two weeks at the end of the day on June 24.