The Office of the U.S. Trade Representatively should allow for goods that were subject to Section 301 tariffs at the time of entry to a foreign-trade zone to be tariffed at whatever rate is in effect when the goods are removed from the FTZ, the National Associations of Foreign-Trade Zones said in a recent letter to the USTR. The trade group offered support for the suspension on Section 301 duties that were related to digital services taxes, and said that "the notices confirm the application of Sec. 301 duty rates in effect at the time of Customs entry for subject merchandise admitted into a U.S. foreign-trade zone (FTZ) in mandated privileged-foreign (PF) status."
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 10. The following headquarters rulings were modified recently, according to CBP:
Car seat frames assembled in Mexico that include various Chinese-origin components aren't subject to Section 301 duties because the components are substantially transformed in Mexico, CBP said in a recent ruling. The ruling came in response to a request from Page-Fura lawyer Jeremy Page, who presented four scenarios that use different countries of origin for the components. Each of the scenarios involves similar production processes.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 2-8:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Aug. 2-6 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 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products “persuasively argue” that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “clearly exceeded its authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed the “massive” lists 3 and 4A tariffs on “virtually all imports” from China “without connecting them to the underlying investigation of China’s trade practices,” said the Consumer Technology Association, the National Retail Federation and five other trade groups Aug. 9 in an amicus brief in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
An annual survey of U.S. firms with operations in China that are members of the U.S.-China Business Council found that about 80% of firms said that U.S.-China tensions affected their businesses. Of that group, about half said it caused lost sales in China; about a quarter said they lost sales due to Chinese retaliatory tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 26 - Aug. 1:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released a technical correction Aug. 3 to an existing Section 301 product exclusion to make it conform with changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule code published July 1. “Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 1, 2021, U.S. note 20(qqq)(4) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting '3808.94.5090' and inserting '3808.94.5090 prior to July 1, 2021; 3808.94.5080 or 3808.94.5095 effective July 1, 2021' in lieu thereof.”
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from July 26-30 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.