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.
Section 301 (too broad)
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 9-15:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he hopes to get "the essence of an agreement" on merging the House and Senate China bills by the end of this month. "I don't mean we're going to have everything agreed to." He said he hopes that each committee delegation can either settle or get very close to finishing their segments by then, though he said some issues will have to be passed up to leadership. "And then I'm hopeful we can get the Competes bill done by the end of next month. That I know is a very ambitious, perhaps naive expectation." He acknowledged there are "real differences" between the two versions.
The AFL-CIO told China bill conferees that renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance, making changes to trade remedies laws, creating outbound investment screening and removing Chinese exports from de minimis eligibility "should be included in any competitiveness package that purports to challenge China's increasing economic dominance."
While the Biden administration faces very little legal constraint to continuing the Section 301 tariffs on the vast majority of Chinese imports, trade experts at the Wiley firm said that the administration is under pressure for a variety of reasons to make a decision on whether they are going to change their approach to the tariffs. So far, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has reinstated fewer than 500 exclusions, either due to the COVID-19 pandemic or to a limited review, and has not offered to renew the bulk of the 2,129 exclusions that were granted during the previous administration.
The Biden administration's approach to changing Section 301 tariffs is "a work in progress," said Sarah Bianchi, a deputy U.S. trade representative, while at a May 11 National Council of Textile Organizations conference. Her comments, which avoided directly answering a question of whether the administration position is that tariffs on apparel are not strategic, came a day after President Joe Biden told reporters that administration officials are discussing whether any Section 301 tariffs should be lowered or removed, "and no decision has been made on it."
The International Trade Commission published notices in the May 10 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent or other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):
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.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 2-8:
Sidley lawyer Ted Murphy says he doesn't expect a review of Section 301 tariffs to lead to a policy change on the tariffs, which cover about $300 billion worth of Chinese imports annually. He said that even though a review of the tariffs has to evaluate how effective the actions have been, and has to analyze how the tariffs have affected consumers, "if it ultimately concludes that the additional duties have been only mildly effective and/or have had a negative impact on U.S. interests (businesses and/or consumers), there is no requirement that the USTR take any action. As a result, we do not think that this effort is likely to present a meaningful opportunity for change." Murphy wrote those sentences in bold, for emphasis. Still, he said it is possible, given the messages from some corners of the administration that goods such as bicycles or apparel should not be facing higher tariffs, that "additional duties on certain non-strategic consumer goods may be lifted."