The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill became law Sept. 13 with the signature of the president, the White House announced on Sept. 13. The tariff rate reductions on nearly 1,700 items will take effect Oct. 13 -- 30 days after enactment. The reductions, which will last through the end of 2020, only affect the Most Favored Nation rate and not Section 301 tariffs. The International Trade Commission developed the list, and most of the items are intermediate goods, but some are consumer goods that are not produced in the U.S.
The Washington Tax and Public Policy Group opened a new division to focus on trade issues, the lobbying firm said in a news release. The new division, WTG Global, is led by Brian Diffell, who joined the firm in 2013 after working as a congressional staffer. Among issues WTG Global will work on are Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, Section 301 tariffs and NAFTA, it said.
CBP created Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1813 on Aug. 21, containing 22 Automated Broker Interface records and five harmonized tariff records, it said in a CSMS message. The update includes changes related to the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China that took effect Aug. 23 (see 1808160049), CBP said. CBP intended to issue the message previously and was "unaware this message did not post successfully initially," it said. Modifications were also made in support of partner government agency message set functionality, it said.
The Trump administration should pursue a “plurilateral agreement among the world’s largest economies” to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, commented IBM in docket USTR-2018-0026 in opposition to the third tranche of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports. IBM thinks that a global agreement with China’s “largest trade and investment partners” could help “establish broad new norms,” it said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Sept. 4-7 in case they were missed.
The Information Technology Industry Council, like the Consumer Technology Association (see 1809070025), questions whether President Donald Trump's proposed third tranche of 25 percent Section 301 tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports "is legal" under the 1974 Trade Act, spokesman Jose Castaneda said in a Sept. 10 email. ITI has made no “final decision” whether to pursue “litigation” against the administration to block the tariffs from taking effect, he said.
The Consumer Technology Association is considering a lawsuit to challenge the proposed tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods from China under Section 301, the trade group said in a news release. “We are reviewing all options,” emailed spokeswoman Izzy Santa when asked if CTA will sue to block the levies. CTA's comments "detail how these tariffs may be vulnerable to a legal challenge because they are not based on the required legal finding of unfair business practices by China, and instead are retaliatory in nature and require a separate Section 301 investigation, which USTR did not conduct," it said. Gary Shapiro, CTA's CEO, said "we are skeptical the $200 billion tariffs will be upheld in court if challenged."
China is a bigger problem than Canada, President Donald Trump told reporters Sept. 7 on Air Force One, and said he has tariffs ready to go on all the other Chinese products that have not faced additional tariffs in the trade war thus far. "Nobody has ever done what I’ve done. The $200 billion we’re talking about, could take place very soon, depending what happens with them," he said, referring to the third tranche of Chinese goods subject to Section 301 tariffs (see 1807110050), whose comment period ended Sept. 6. "And I hate to say that, but behind that, there’s another $267 billion ready to go on short notice, if I want. That totally changes the equation," he said, according to various media reports.
Continuing the “tit-for-tat tariff escalation” with China by enacting a third tranche of proposed Section 301 duties on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports “only serves to expand the harm to more U.S. economic interests, including farmers, families, businesses, and workers,” wrote the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, the National Retail Federation and 148 other trade groups in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer at the Sept. 6 deadline for comments in docket USTR-2018-0026. “Unilaterally imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in goods invites retaliation,” said the groups, which also included the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones, the American Association of Exporters and Importers, the Information Technology Industry Council and the Telecommunications Industry Association. Implementing the first two rounds of tariffs July 6 and Aug. 23 “has not resulted in meaningful negotiations or concessions” from the Chinese, they said.
The Trump administration’s proposed Section 301 tariffs on a third tranche of Chinese goods worth about $200 billion in customs value “would target many key components that make cloud computing possible,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation reported on Sept. 4. The administration “in theory” initiated the tariffs to “counteract unfair Chinese trade practices and improve U.S. competitiveness,” ITIF said. “But their practical effect would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing, and stunting U.S. economic growth,” it said. Though “contesting Chinese innovation mercantilism” is a “laudable and necessary mission,” the administration needs to “seek alternative policy measures that do not raise the cost of key productivity -- and innovation-enhancing capital goods and services such as information technology and cloud computing,” it said. ITIF fears that tariffs would raise prices for businesses and consumers and force cloud-service providers to cut costs through job reductions or curtail spending on new data centers or the research and development “needed to stay ahead of international competitors,” it said. It also worries that cloud providers “may be forced to invest elsewhere to remain competitive,” it said. Tariffs also “threaten to disrupt finely crafted global supply chains for the manufacture of information-technology products,” it said. Those supply chains can’t “easily be reinvented in the short term without significant detriment to, and dislocation of, U.S. industry,” it said.