Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., reacting to a report in Inside U.S. Trade that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative decided not to launch a new Section 301 investigation on China yet, sent a letter March 15 to USTR Katherine Tai asking whether the report is accurate and if so, why. A USTR spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment on the letter. Cotton wrote that the Chinese Communist Party "has shown nothing but malice towards this nation and should be shown no leniency in our response to its economic aggression. For this reason, I am deeply disappointed to learn that USTR is not pursuing an expansive set of Section 301 investigations into China’s anti-competitive and illegal trade practices."
Section 301 (too broad)
Two chainsaw chain and blade importers, TriLink Saw Chain and TriLink Global, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle allegations that the companies misclassified their imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa said. The U.S. alleged that the importers purposely classified their chain saw chains and blades from September 2018 through June 2019 under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading to avoid paying Section 301 China tariffs -- a violation of the False Claims Act.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 7-13:
July 6 marks the fourth anniversary of the List 1 Section 301 tariffs' taking effect on Chinese imports, and the 1974 Trade Act requires their expiration after four years, “unless some conditions are met,” said David Olave, a Sandler Travis associate and trade policy adviser, on a recent podcast. “No unilateral 301 action that I know has made it through the four years, so we’re about to witness trade policy procedural history,” he said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 28 - March 6:
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 National Electrical Manufacturers Association is asking House and Senate leadership to "expeditiously advance" a compromise China package by resolving differences between the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) and the America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength (America Competes) Act.
A recent Court of International Trade opinion left prior court precedent on the question of what constitutes a substantial transformation "dead, or on life support," an analysis from law firm Neville Peterson said. The result is that importers who have been told by CBP that the country of origin of their goods is the country of origin of the goods' major inputs or essential components will likely seek reconsideration of those rulings, seeking refunds on Section 301 China tariffs in particular, the firm said.
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
China's lack of worker rights, weak environmental standards "and anticompetitive subsidies are the hallmarks of China’s artificial comparative advantage. It is an advantage that puts others out of business and violates any notion of fair competition," the annual trade policy agenda from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said, and the administration is looking to advance fair competition "through all available avenues," including coordinating with other countries, using existing trade agreements, or new tools, it said.