The Biden administration will complete its review of the Section 301 tariffs "this fall," U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai wrote to senators, and while she did not commit to any course of action, she wrote: "As part of the 4-Year Review of the Section 301 tariffs, USTR is reviewing the effectiveness of the tariffs in achieving the objectives of the investigation, as well as the effect of the tariffs on consumers, workers, and the U.S. economy at large. As part of this review, we are considering the existing tariffs structure and how to make the tariffs more strategic in light of impacts on sectors of the U.S. economy as well [as] the goal of increasing domestic manufacturing."
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is amending two exclusions from Section 301 tariffs to conform the tariff numbers in the descriptions of the exclusions to recent tariff schedule changes, it said in a notice. The affected exclusions are found at U.S. Notes 20(ttt)(iii)(73) and 20(ttt)(iii)(74) to subchapter III of Chapter 99.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 10-16:
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who has in the past been a skeptic of the utility of the broad scope of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2205180036), rejected the premise of a reporter's question that the U.S. could remove tariffs to "extend an olive branch" to China.
Members of the Select Committee on China led a letter from 66 House members to the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee, complaining that the expiration of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program has benefited China and led importers who had capitalized on GSP to return to China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of June 26 - July 2 and July 3-9:
The lack of disclosure in Enforce and Protect Act evasion proceedings and the deferential standard of review "stack the deck" in favor of the alleger, giving importers "a lot to complain about in the EAPA process," customs lawyer Larry Friedman of Barnes/Richardson said in a July 6 blog post. Even importers who believe they have conducted reasonable due diligence may have serious unexpected liabilities that come out during the investigation, he said.
The ability to import low-value packages without paying duties is a benefit to consumers and businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade groups that use de minimis are arguing, as they lobby against bipartisan efforts to curtail de minimis eligibility.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 19-25:
The Court of International Trade on June 14 granted importer Maple Leaf Marketing's bid to redesignate the U.S.'s counterclaim as a defense in a customs spat on the classification of boronized steel tubing. Dismissing Maple Leaf's bid to dismiss as moot, Judge Claire Kelly cited the court's Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S. decision to find that nowhere in Congress' scheme on the classification of goods does the legislative body explicitly let the U.S. "assert a counterclaim challenging CBP's classification."