Importers of finished goods and manufacturing inputs told the International Trade Commission across three days of testimony that the Section 301 tariffs are damaging profit margins, and in some cases lead to layoffs. But some unions and manufacturers said the Section 301 tariffs are deserved for Chinese abuses, and with the tariffs in place, the goods they make are more competitive. The International Trade Commission is studying the efficacy of Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs, and their economic impact.
Across three days of testimony July 20-22, the International Trade Commission heard from dozens of companies, trade groups and advocacy groups about the economic impact of Section 301 tariffs and Section 232 tariffs and quotas. The tariffs and quotas on metals inspired fewer witnesses than the China tariffs, but they were no less emphatic.The United Steelworkers said they strongly supported the tariffs and asked that they remain strong. Pete Trinidad, president of a USW local that represents 3,500 steel workers in Indiana, argued that the tariffs had either a small or no measurable effect on prices, according to a think tank study.
Consumer tech products imported from China bore more than $32 billion in Section 301 tariff exposure between July 2018, when the first of the tariffs took effect, and December 2021, without dissuading most U.S. importers to abandon Chinese sourcing, according to a newly released Consumer Technology Association report produced with Trade Partnership Worldwide. A CTA spokesperson said July 20 that the association released the report to coincide with this week's public hearing at the International Trade Commission as part of its investigation on the economic impact of the Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on U.S. industries.
The International Trade Commission published notices in the July 19 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent or other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):
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.
The head of the Bureau of Industry and Security told senators that the agency expects to put out a rule by the end of the year adjusting how Section 232 exclusions are granted.
CBP’s reversal in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case at the Court of International Trade case puts the agency’s entire Enforce and Protect Act program “in jeopardy,” the domestic industry group Aluminum Extruders Council said in a blog post July 13.
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.
The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 dismissed a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.
Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., who's been a defender of trade liberalization, introduced a bill that requires the Treasury Department, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission to assess whether the Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, safeguard tariffs and the expiration of the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program have contributed to inflation.