On September 15, 2020, a World Trade Organization (“WTO”) panel found that the Trump Administration’s unilateral tariffs imposed on Chinese products violated WTO rules regarding nondiscrimination and import tariff rates agreed to by the United States. The dispute concerned China’s challenge to the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed pursuant to the Trump Administration’s investigation under Section 301 of China’s intellectual property and technology transfer practices. Specifically, China challenged USTR List 1 (discussed here) and List 3 (discussed here).
Since the handover of Hong Kong by the United Kingdom to China in 1997, Hong Kong has enjoyed separate treatment from the mainland by the United States, other countries and international organizations pursuant to the “one country, two systems” model agreed to by the Chinese government. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 authorized separate treatment of Hong Kong in trade and economic relations as long as Hong Kong remains “sufficiently autonomous” from the mainland. Hong Kong’s special privileges under this law, and the laws of other countries, have contributed to Hong Kong’s status as a powerful global financial and trading hub. Continue reading →
On April 19, 2020, the Treasury Department in conjunction with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released a temporary interim final rule (“Rule”) to provide importers that meet the qualifying criteria with the option of a 90-day deferment period on the payment of duties, taxes, and fees for goods coming into the U.S. in March and April. Similar to other COVID-19-related rules, the Rule became effective immediately. Continue reading →
On Friday, March 20, 2020, in an effort to fight against the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that it is accepting exclusions requests to remove tariffs imposed on Chinese origin medical-care products under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301). This process does not replace the current exclusion process, but rather serves to supplement it.
On February 3, 2020, the Department of Commerce published a final rule that amends the regulations for countervailing duty investigations to allow the imposition of duties on countries that undervalue their currencies. Publication of the final rule follows a May 28, 2019, notice of the proposed rule. The regulation will go into effect on April 6.
On September 1, a new round of Section 301 duties will be imposed on “List 4” products. President Trump previously announced plans for these duties, but had delayed implementation in June citing progress on the negotiations with China leading up to the G20 summit. Reportedly, however, the recently resumed talks have not led to the progress desired by the Administration. In his series of tweets announcing the 10 percent tariff, President Trump stated that China had failed to purchase increased quantities of U.S. agricultural goods and reduce the flow of fentanyl into the United States.
On May 21, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) established a process through which U.S. stakeholders may exclude products included in List 3 from a 25% tariff imposed pursuant to the investigation of China’s intellectual property practices under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) (discussed here). The window to submit exclusion requests will open “on or around” June 30.
On May 9, 2019, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a Federal Notice indicating that tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports would be increased from 10% to 25%. These products are included in the third set of tariff categories (the first two sets are discussed here) announced by USTR in connection with the investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to intellectual property (discussed here). The increase will go into effect on May 10, 2019 at 12:01 am eastern daylight time. Over the weekend, President Trump also threatened a 25% tariff will “shortly” be imposed on the remaining $325 billion worth of imports not currently subject to tariffs. For the prior three sets of Section 301 duties, there were proposed regulations with opportunity for public comment, and it seems likely that USTR would follow the same approach if there will be a fourth set.
- June 15, 2018 – U.S. proposes an additional 25 percent ad valorem duty on products from China (818 tariff categories) with an annual trade value of approximately $34 billion. The $34 billion action became effective on July 6, 2018. (See our previous blog here)
- June 15, 2018 – U.S. also proposes an additional 25 percent ad valorem duty on products from China (284 tariff categories) with annual trade value of approximately $16 billion. The $16 billion action is undergoing public comment.
- June 15, 2018 – China retaliates imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on U.S. goods with a value of $50 billion. Part of this action ($34 billion) became effective on July 6, 2018. The additional $16 billion will be effective on a date to be determined.
- July 11, 2018 – U.S. proposes an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty on products of China with an annual trade value of $200 billion.
On July 11, 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) proposed an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty on products of China with an annual trade value of $200 billion. President Trump directed this action in connection with the Section 301 investigation into China’s acts, policies and practices related to intellectual property (discussed here and here).
According to USTR, President Trump directed this action in response to China’s decision to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods following the initial round of 25% tariff increases on Chinese goods covering $50 billion in trade value, $16 billion of which is currently proposed (discussed here). According to the USTR, “China has shown that it will not respond to action at a $50 billion level” and “supplemental action at a $200 billion level is in accord with the President’s direction.”
The proposed tariffs cover 6,031 tariff subheadings and a wide variety of products, including food, chemical, mineral, electrical products; fertilizers; photographic goods; plastic, rubber, leather, cork, and wood articles; paper and paperboard; textile articles; headgear; stone, ceramic and glass articles; base metals; various types of machinery and appliances; electrical equipment; vehicles; ships; clocks; and furniture.
USTR will finalize the list following a public notice and comment process, including a hearing. USTR has requested comments on:
- Whether tariff subheadings included in the list should be retained or removed, or whether subheadings not currently on the list should be added;
- In comments advocating for the removal of products from the list, commentators address whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would: 1) be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of China’s acts, policies, and practices identified by USTR to be in violation of Section 301 (discussed in our blog post here); and 2) cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-sized businesses and consumers.
- The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty;
- The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
The relevant dates for the proceedings are as follows:
- July 27: Requests to appear and a summary of expected testimony
- August 17: Written comments
- August 20-23: Public Hearing
- August 30: Post-hearing rebuttal comments
On April 12, 2018 the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced it was self-initiating a review to assess India’s eligibility to continue to be treated as a beneficiary country under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences program (GSP).
The GSP is a trade preference program that allows duty free access to about 5,000 tariff categories from a range of developing and least developed countries, which are designated as beneficiary developing countries (BDCs) and least-developed beneficiary developing countries (LDBDCs). About 3,500 of these categories are available to all GSP countries, while about 1,500 are reserved for LDBDCs.