Following President Trump’s direction in connection with the Section 301 investigation into China’s acts, policies and practices related to intellectual property (discussed here), on June 15, 2018, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced a 25% tariff increase on Chinese products valued at approximately $34 billion in 2018 trade values, with more tariff increases to come. Below, we describe USTR’s action and China’s response.
On 23 May 2018, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act became law in the United Kingdom. Its aim is to provide a legal framework to allow the UK to impose sanctions and implement its own sanctions regime once the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019. However, the Bill goes well beyond any current EU sanctions regime and provides scope for the Government to shape an autonomous UK sanctions policy.
On May 23, 2018, as directed by President Trump, the Secretary of Commerce initiated a Section 232 investigation into whether imports of automobiles, including SUVs, vans, light trucks and automotive parts, threaten to impair national security. President Trump reportedly is contemplating tariffs as high as 25% on automobile imports, similar to the tariff imposed a result of its recent 232 action on steel imports.
Long awaited rules for “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions” (the CDD Rules) went into effect on May 11, 2018. FinCEN has taken steps to clarify and refine implementation of the CDD Rules, issuing (1) FAQs on April 3, 2018 and (2) a ruling on May 16, 2018 providing covered financial institutions with a limited 90-day exceptive relief from the obligations for financial products and services that are subject to automatic renewals, provided such products were established before May 11, 2018.
There are several legislative proposals pending in Congress targeting trade and investment involving China. If enacted, the proposals would prevent Chinese entities from acquiring certain U.S. technologies, prohibit U.S. government procurement from ZTE and Huawei, and limit U.S. issuers from receiving investments from Chinese parties.
Today, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and to impose the “highest level of economic sanctions” on Iran. The Office of Foreign Assets Control quickly thereafter published FAQs that discuss how the sanctions will be implemented.
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.
Recent reports suggest that the Administration may declare an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to grant the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) authority to review transactions involving the transfer of U.S. technology and intellectual property (IP) to foreign entities, even where there is no transfer of “control” as currently required under existing CFIUS regulations. This executive action would follow a memorandum issued by President Trump directing the U.S. Government to propose possible restrictions on Chinese investment in U.S. companies due to concerns outlined by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in connection with its Section 301 investigation. The potential CFIUS review of U.S. technology transfers to foreign entities would mirror one aspect of the pending Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017 (FIRRMA).
- The Treasury Department has placed several prominent Russian individuals and companies on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons lists (SDN list). Several of these parties are Russian billionaires previously identified in the Treasury Department’s so-called “Oligarch List” reported to Congress on January 29, 2018.
- Under the general licenses issued with the new listings, U.S. persons have until June 5, 2018 to wind down operations with specified listed companies and their subsidiaries, and until May 7, 2018 to divest debt, equity, or holdings owned by EN+ Group PLC, GAZ Group and United Company RUSAL PLC.
- General License 12, which allows wind down operations with several newly designated SDN companies, instructs that payments to the SDNs must be made into blocked accounts with U.S. banks. This deviates from previous general licenses which did not place conditions on how SDNs must be paid.
On April 6, 2018, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), in consultation with the State Department, designated 7 Russian oligarchs, 12 companies that they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and 1 state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank. (The list may be found here.)
Yesterday, President Trump issued a memorandum (“Memorandum”) directing his Administration to take several actions related to the investigation by the Office of U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) into China’s acts, policies, and practices (“APPs”) related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”). The actions include restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States and the imposition of higher customs duties on imports from China. At the signing ceremony, President Trump called this action “the first of many” against Chinese practices. USTR Ambassador Lighthizer echoed the President at a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee today, noting that the Administration “expects to bring additional [actions] in other areas where the [United States does not] have reciprocal response.”
Below we describe these actions and USTR’s findings in the Section 301 investigation.