International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
While the treasury secretary has said before that some of the tariffs on Chinese goods hurt America more than they hurt China (see 2107190046), and the U.S. trade representative has defended them, the White House has now said that the administration's review of its China trade policy is taking inflation into account.
With negotiations expected to begin in earnest soon on the House and Senate's trade packages, staffers in both chambers of Congress say there could be support for antidumping and countervailing duty reform and language around Section 301 tariff exclusions, but the likelihood of a dramatic de minimis change seems somewhat remote.
Functionality for five reinstated Section 301 exclusions in ACE will not be available until April 26, CBP said in a CSMS message. Due to an error in programming, ACE is still not permitting the filing of Chapter 99 duty or exclusion subheadings for tariff schedule numbers 0505.10.0050, 8412.21.0045, 8483.50.9040, 8525.60.1010 and 8607.21.1000, CBP said. Importers that entered goods subject to Section 301 tariffs under those five subheadings on or after April 12 without an associated Chapter 99 Section 301 subheading should file a post-summary correction once ACE filing capabilities are restored for the subheadings April 26, CBP said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 11-17:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Coalition for a Prosperous America trade counsel Charles Benoit slammed Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, calling him "chief betrayer" for the trade title he was integral in shaping in the Senate China package, known as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act or USICA. In an April 14 blog post, Benoit said that Crapo, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is "laser focused on making imports as cheap and easy as possible." Benoit said that "USICA’s trade title is cancerous to its core -- akin to committing economic treason against American workers and industry." He said the Section 301 exclusion process requirements are the worst, but he also criticized the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill renewal, which would continue the ability of finished goods to qualify for unilateral tariff reduction or elimination. "If Republicans don’t abandon his betrayal of our nation, the GOP will spend another decade tarnished as the party of globalization, big tech, and the hollowing out of our country," Benoit wrote. Crapo's office declined to comment.
The reinstated Section 301 tariff exclusions for subheading 8536.50.9065 won't be available in ACE until April 17, CBP said in a CSMS message. Those exclusions in "classification 9903.88.67 will be available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) on April 17," it said. The agency message is an update to a previous message that said reinstated exclusions would be available in ACE April 12 (see 2204050068).
Direct negotiations with China are, “at this point, unlikely to yield meaningful results” in curbing Beijing’s unfair trade practices, Emily Kilcrease, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in written testimony at a hearing April 14. “China has little incentive to commit to binding rules that will require structural changes to a system they believe works for their economic and political objectives,” she said.
A wide variety of trade groups told the Commerce Department that while they know the administration doesn't intend to tackle tariffs as part of its negotiations with Asian countries, they think offering to lower tariffs on U.S. goods would be the best way to get ambitious commitments in the region, and many said reconsidering the re-named Trans-Pacific Partnership is better than the conceived Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.