The International Trade Commission on April 26 issued Revision 3 to the 2021 Basic Edition of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The only change was the addition of language to apply Section 301 exclusions to goods on the water in May-June 2019 at the time an increase in the tariffs, from 10% to 25%, was announced (see 2104230047). U.S. Note 20(l) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 is amended to add the following: “the product exclusions provided by headings 9903.88.13, 9903.88.18, 9903.88.33, 9903.88.34, 9903.88.35, 9903.88.36, 9903.88.37, 9903.88.38, 9903.88.40, 9903.88.41, 9903.88.43, 9903.88.45, 9903.88.46 and 9903.88.48 shall apply to articles the product of China that were entered under heading 9903.88.09 and that are provided for in this subdivision." A compiler’s note says: “The last sentence of this paragraph applied to such articles exported before May 10, 2019, and entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, into the United States on or after May 10, 2019, and before June 15, 2019.”
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from April 19-23 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced a technical correction that allows refunds for products exported after the tariffs were hiked from 10% to 25% but on the water at the time the increase was announced. The notice, set for Federal Register publication April 26, says goods that left China before May 10, 2019, and entered the U.S. before June 15, 2019, and are covered by a Section 301 exclusion, are now excluded.
Thirty Republicans, led by Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, and seven Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Carper of Del., asked U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to renew expired Section 301 exclusions. “Some inputs for American manufacturers and small businesses remain unavailable outside of China,” the letter, sent April 21, said. The senators, joined by independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, said expiring exclusions should also be renewed, to give companies time to modify their supply chains. They also said they hoped the office different would reopen applications for exclusions. “Such a process should emphasize transparency, speed, consistency, and fairness, and should acknowledge both the practical realities of global value chains and the broader aim of supply chain diversification,” they wrote.
A witness at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on China and trade competitiveness told senators that if the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and his company's Section 301 exclusion aren't granted retroactively, Element Electronics would be forced to move production out of the U.S.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 12-18:
The International Trade Commission recently issued Revision 2 to the basic edition of the 2021 Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The only changes in Revision 2, released March 30, relate to the extension of Section 301 exclusions for certain COVID-19 treatment goods announced in early March (see 2103050052). The terms of subheadings 9903.88.62, 9903.88.63, 9903.88.64 and 9903.88.65 are amended so they now say they expire Sept. 30.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 5-11:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from April 5-9 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, expressed optimism over a recent U.S. Court of International Trade ruling striking down an extension of President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariffs to aluminum and steel derivatives (see 2104050049). He believes the ruling spells good news for the massive litigation involving more than 3,700 companies challenging the expansion of the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. Although based on a different law, Kane believes CIT's April 5 ruling demonstrates the court's willingness to hold the president to account over laws and regulations. In the case of the derivatives, the tariff expansion was eliminated because it was imposed after a 105-day period during which the president can impose Section 232 tariffs after receiving a report on the need for the duties from the Commerce Department.