Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, plans to introduce a bill that would make all executive branch trade actions, including tariff raises, subject to congressional approval, as part of his call for Congress to reclaim constitutional powers to lead U.S. trade policy, he wrote in an opinion column for Forbes (here). The yet-to-be-introduced Global Trade Accountability Act would help ensure that Congress would be involved in any decision that would increase trade barriers, Lee said. One example of a statute giving the executive branch “far too much power” to raise tariffs is Trade Act of 1974 Section 122, which allows the president to impose temporary import “surcharges” of up to 15 percent on any goods to deal with “large and serious” U.S. balance-of-payment deficits, Lee said.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is issuing a list of 85 headings and subheadings that could be subject to retaliatory tariffs being considered against the EU, as industry representatives have claimed that the EU is discriminating against U.S. beef exports, USTR said (here). The Obama administration is considering the tariffs (see 1612220023) after members of the U.S. beef industry filed a petition to USTR for their reinstatement, the agency said.
The U.S. is considering reinstatement of tariffs on certain imports from the EU, in connection with alleged EU discrimination against U.S. beef exports, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement (here). An agreement signed by the EU and U.S. in 2009 to allow EU imports of non-hormone-treated U.S. beef “has not worked as intended,” USTR said in its statement (see 09050705). The agreement was renewed in 2013, and expired Aug. 2, 2015 (see 13102316). Before any trade action, USTR will examine the anticipated effectiveness of imposing tariffs and other possible actions, including against non-beef EU products, as well as the effects on the U.S. economy and consumers, USTR said (here).
President-elect Donald Trump's hard-line trade stance expressed throughout his campaign is seen by some as more of a negotiating tactic than a clear indicator of likely policy changes. While scholars still wonder how Trump would react if such talks don’t meet his goals, there's much debate as to what authority the president has to enact many of the Trump campaign promises. Among other things, Trump has said the U.S. should renegotiate NAFTA (see 1611100040), collect up to 45 percent tariffs to counter alleged Chinese currency manipulation (see 1601150029), and raise tariffs on companies that move operations overseas, withdrawing from the World Trade Organization if it disapproves of that policy (see 1607260043). Withdrawing from the WTO seems the least likely of those proposals, but a greater effort to engage China from a Trump administration is especially likely, observers said.
The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (here), signed into law Feb. 24, includes provisions on small business trade issues and trade promotion, enforcement of existing trade agreements and currency manipulation. The ITC will be required to establish a new “import monitoring tool” on its website, and CBP will have to develop a database of honey characteristics to counter false country of origin labeling. Currency manipulation provisions authorize some retaliation for exchange rate policies, including a stop to procurement from offending countries, but fall well short of more stringent provisions, including countervailing duties on manipulators, debated early in the legislative process (see 1504230001).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is requesting written submissions from the public by Feb. 5 concerning foreign countries that “deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights” or deny fair market access to U.S. citizens who rely on intellectual property protection, a notice published Jan. 11 in the Federal Register states (here). In advance of a March 1 public hearing to be hosted by USTR’s Special 301 Subcommittee, USTR is asking that the public identify whether a particular trading partner should be named as a priority foreign country under Section 182 of the Trade Act or placed on the Priority Watch List or Watch List. Foreign governments will have until Feb. 19 to submit written comments, notices of intent to testify at the hearing, and any prepared hearing statements. USTR plans to publish the 2016 Special 301 Report on or close to April 30.
The U.S. International Trade Commission released its annual report on the previous year's trade-related activities, it said in a press release (here). The report (here) includes an overview of antidumping and countervailing duty, safeguard, intellectual property rights, and section 301 cases undertaken by the U.S. government in 2014. In addition, the report covers:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is setting new requirements for the importation of dogs, in a final rule that takes effect Nov. 17. The new regulations prohibit the importation of dogs into the continental U.S. or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment, unless the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least six months of age. An import license will be required, along with health and vaccination certificates. Certain dogs imported for veterinary treatment are exempt from health, vaccination and age requirements, and dogs from British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand may be imported into Hawaii even if less than six months old.
The U.S. International Trade Commission released its annual report on the previous year's trade-related activities, it said in a press release (here). "The Year in Trade 2013” includes an overview of antidumping and countervailing duty, safeguard, intellectual property rights, and section 301 cases undertaken by the U.S. government in 2013. In addition, the report covers:
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) determined Ukraine is a significant violator of intellectual property rights (IPR) protections in a Section 301 review, but will disregard the infringement at this time in light of the ongoing political transition in the country, said USTR. Under Section 301, USTR can retaliate against countries it classifies as IPR violators. In May 2013, USTR determined the Ukrainian government used infringing software and the country hosted infringement of copyright and related rights.