Though Hasbro products have escaped three rounds of Trade Act Section 301 tariffs implemented or proposed on Chinese goods, the toymaker is talking with the Trump administration and its congressional delegations “to ensure we’re communicating just how terrible an impact an ongoing tariff or trade war” would have on the company and the U.S. economy, CEO Brian Goldner said on a July 23 earnings call. “Thus far we’ve only seen non-material changes to the tariff schemes of other countries that don’t really impact our business,” he said. Hasbro’s toy business “has not been part” of Section 301 duties that took effect July 6, “but we continue to monitor the situation,” he said. “We continue to talk and firmly believe in a free-trade environment as the best course for our company and for the industry.” Hasbro sources about 65 percent of its product in revenue terms from China, but “we’re moving more production outside China,” Goldner said. “We found some great new partners and territories that provide very-high-quality product that can meet with our specifications,” he said. Hasbro also draws about 25 percent of its U.S. revenue from products sourced from manufacturing sites it runs in five states, Goldner said.
Section 301 (too broad)
Goods under the $800 de minimis level are not subject to Section 232 tariffs, a CBP spokesperson said July 18. CBP previously said that tariffs don't apply to de minimis shipments covered under the Section 301 tariffs (see 1807050033). The agency recently ruled against the use of foreign-trade zones to get around limits on de minimis entries (see 1807180022).
Consumer electronics wearables will be one of six categories of sports and activity gear included in a “global product labeling database” that the Sports & Fitness Industry Association and the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry will partner on in about a month, said Alli Schulman, SFIA coordinator-communications and marketing, on a July 18 webinar to mobilize member company opposition to proposed 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on sports equipment and accessories (see 1807190003). The database will “provide labeling requirements for 49 countries around the world." More details will be disclosed in an SFIA webinar Aug. 2, she said.
In more than 2,300 comments on the possibility of tariffs on imported autos and auto parts, only three support the idea, according to Jennifer Thomas, vice president of federal government affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Thomas, who represents all companies with American plants, was one of 45 witnesses testifying at the Commerce Department July 19, as the department investigates whether an increase in auto parts imports impairs the economic security of the auto industry or the ability of the military to benefit from advanced technologies such as autonomous driving (see 1805240002).
It’s “difficult to read the tea leaves,” or “glean” any lessons, from why the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative removed certain tariff lines from the initial list of Section 301 tariffs, said David Cohen, a lawyer with Sandler Travis, during Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) webinar July 18. The USTR on June 15 announced it deleted 40 percent of the product lines from its first list of proposed Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 1806150003). The rationale behind those changes isn't apparent, he said.
The Section 321 entry exemptions do not apply to bulk shipments sent to foreign-trade zones that are broken up for individual consumption entries below the $800 de minimis level prior to a consumer order, CBP said in May 8 ruling the agency released on July 17. Much of the decision hinges on the definition of "importation," as expected (see 1806050049). The ruling came in response to an internal advice request from Jim Swanson, CBP director-cargo and conveyance security and controls, it said. CBP recently said the new Section 301 tariffs won't apply to Section 321 entries (see 1807050033).
Lawmakers, farmers and agriculture trade groups voiced worries about the effect of tariffs on rural communities during a July 18 House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee hearing. "Most of our agriculture producers today rely heavily on export markets, and unfortunately, many of these farmers and producers are now facing the loss of not just one of their top international export markets, but their top 2, 3 and 4 export markets -- all at once," Chairman Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said in an opening statement. "They are facing severe and devastating uncertainty -- and that goes right to their profitability." In response to recent sections 232 and 301 tariffs, "U.S. agriculture is now facing retaliatory tariffs from the EU, China, Mexico, Canada, Turkey, Russia and India," he said. "Now, I know that the administration did not intend for U.S. agriculture to be hurt, but the damage is entirely predictable."
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for July 9-13 in case they were missed.
A Display Supply Chain Consultants analysis of International Trade Commission data found the firm’s initial read that the Chinese-sourced display product lines targeted July 10 for proposed 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs (see 1807110055) accounted for minuscule import shipments in 2017, DSCC President Bob O’Brien told us. Of the 21 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) product codes listed in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notice under the “8528" heading for displays, only four of those classifications of imports had customs values exceeding $1 million last year for all countries of origin, including China, O’Brien said.
China filed an additional complaint at the World Trade Organization over the U.S. Section 301 tariffs. A 10 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports has not yet been imposed, and will not be imposed until public input on the more than 6,000-product list is received (see 1807110050). In the past, the U.S. has accepted consultations in Geneva with China even before tariffs begin (see 1804190039).