International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for April 27 - May 1 in case they were missed.
CBP reminded importers that they may request extensions of liquidation to preserve their right to refunds of sections 232 and 301 tariffs when liquidation is approaching but their requests for tariff exclusions are still pending, in a CSMS message sent May 1. “Given the potential retroactive application of Section 232 and Section 301 product exclusions, in situations where the importer has requested a product exclusion and the request is pending with the [Commerce Department] or [the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative], the importer or their licensed representative may submit a request to extend the liquidation of impacted unliquidated entry summaries to CBP,” CBP said.
The International Trade Commission identified 112 tariff lines in a report on goods needed to fight COVID-19, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., is asking that all duties be suspended for 90 days on those goods. The majority of the 112 tariff lines are covered neither by Section 301 nor by Most Favored Nation duties, so are currently duty free.
The International Trade Commission recently issued two rapid-fire updates to the 2020 Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Revision 8 to the HTS implemented the suspension of Generalized System of Preferences treatment for many products from Thailand in response to labor rights violations (see 1910280044), effective April 25. Also on that update, the ITC implemented extensions to list 1 Section 301 tariff exclusions under U.S. Note 20(j), as announced in an April 10 notice from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (see 2004080011). In Revision 9, issued April 29, the ITC implemented a new set of Section 301 exclusions for products on list 3, as announced in a USTR notice issued April 24 (see 2004230010). The exclusions are found under U.S. Note 20(xx), and filed under 9903.88.45.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 20-26:
A steel and aluminum importer filed a lawsuit April 21 challenging the importer-specific exclusion process for Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum products as unconstitutional. Thyssenkrupp says the exclusions, which, unlike Section 301 exclusions, are only granted to the importer that requested them, violate the “Uniformity Clause” of the Constitution.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for April 13-17 in case they were missed.
A lawyer with Crowell & Moring encouraged importers to apply for a Section 301 exclusion, even if their products aren't primarily used inside hospitals, and even if they were rejected in a previous round. Maria Vanikiotis said on a webinar April 15 that reflective triangles used to direct traffic were identified as needed to fight COVID-19 by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative even before the office opened a docket for more requests. “We feel there’s also quite a bit of room for creativity and what products may be considered relevant,” she said, including products that are used by remote workers, such as computer docks. “Shelf stable food products also could be within scope,” she said. “Essentially, there's no risk for making an argument.”
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for April 6-10 in case they were missed.
A recent Congressional Research Service report suggests that the U.S. may want to use safeguards deal with China's export-dominated strategy to rebuild its economy after the shutdowns needed to fight the coronavirus disease COVID-19. “Congress may want to carefully monitor or consider whether to impose requirements about potential predatory commercial activity in the United States,” the report said. “The potential for China to overwhelm global markets as it leans on exports for economic recovery,” the authors said, may mean that safeguards would be better than “waiting until market injury has already occurred to seek damages.”