The U.S. on Feb. 3 brought a complaint against importer Shunny Corp., doing business as Sampac Enterprises, alleging that the company negligently misreported the country of origin of its health products to avoid import duties. The government is seeking nearly $200,000 in unpaid duties, along with a nearly $1.4 million penalty (United States v. Shunny Corp., CIT # 25-00039).
The U.S. Postal Service suspended international inbound mail and packages from China and Hong Kong on Feb. 4 -- and then subsequently removed that suspension hours later.
Trade lawyers at Thompson Hine told clients and stakeholders that the old approaches to lobbying for North American trade don't work on the Trump administration. Don't try arguing that sourcing in Mexico makes your products more price competitive. Don't explain that the three countries' manufacturing supply chains are integrated. Don't tell them that 60% of the value of the Mexican car was in U.S. parts exported to the assembly plant. Don't try to argue that a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada will cause inflation. "They don't want to hear, 'It's going to cost more,' said Dan Ujczo, a senior counsel at the law firm. "'We have invested x amount of dollars, and here are the jobs in the United States,' that’s what they want to hear."
Moments after President Donald Trump’s 10% tariffs on all Chinese products took effect Feb. 4 (see 2502030034), China announced new tariffs and export controls against the U.S. and added two American companies to its so-called unreliable entity list, including one that it accused of adopting “discriminatory measures” when sourcing products from China's Xinjiang region.
House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., declined to say if she'd join forces with colleagues who want to end the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but said, "I certainly think they're on the right track."
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.
President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the duty-free de minimis threshold for goods from China, issued as part of his 10% tariff hike on Chinese products, likely will face legal challenges due to the economic importance of the de minimis rule, customs attorney Lawrence Friedman told us. However, many questions remain on the precise scope of any resulting change, along with the legal theory underpinning it.
Expect upheaval as companies that previously imported goods from China under the de minimis exemption face President Donald Trump's ban via executive order on using de minimis for those goods, members of the trade community told International Trade Today.
Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to President Donald Trump who was known as a China hawk when he served in the president's first administration, said the Commerce Department will be conducting Section 232 investigations on how the steel and aluminum actions should be adjusted, and how imports of critical minerals and essential medicines "are harming [our] ability to produce" those goods.
After President Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariff action on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as well as now-delayed IEEPA tariffs on Mexico and Canada, trade lawyers told us to expect the duties to be challenged in court. Matt Nicely, lead counsel in the ongoing case against tariffs imposed on China during Trump's first administration, said in an email that a legal challenge is coming, a sentiment echoed across the trade bar.