A legislative effort from Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., to expand the president's ability to impose new tariffs (see 1901160012) is a troubling prospect for retailers, according to the National Retail Federation. NRF Senior Vice President for Government Relations David French said Congress “should be working to protect local communities from an escalated trade war” brought on by the Trump administration’s Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports and China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Duffy’s “misguided” legislation “would do the exact opposite, giving the executive branch limitless power to raise taxes in the form of tariffs,” French said. “Congress has already ceded far too much of its clear constitutional authority over tariffs, and we are witnessing the consequences unfold across the country. The idea that Congress would make matters even worse by further abdicating its role on trade policy is simply unconscionable.” Duffy's bill would give the president the ability to raise U.S. tariffs to match other countries' levels without having to justify the move through a safeguard or national security investigation.
Eswar Prasad, a senior trade professor at Cornell University and the former head of the International Monetary Fund's China Division, expects that "some sort of compromise" will be reached with China just before the March 1 deadline for the tariff rate hike, and that after China accedes to certain U.S. demands, "at least they're going to back off additional hostilities." Prasad, speaking at the National Economists Club Jan. 17, said he expects all the tariffs on China to stay in place, as well as the Chinese retaliation -- though he does expect increased purchases of American soybeans to be part of the package.
Measures of compliance among steel products importers are down since the imposition of sections 301 and 232 tariffs, said the American Institute for International Steel’s Customs Committee in its 2018 year-end report. CBP told the trade association that compliance measured by the letter of the law for imports in Harmonized Tariff Schedule chapters 72 and 73 was down to 96.46 percent in fiscal year 2018, and down to 97.8 percent when measured by major trade discrepancies, CBP told AIIS, the report said. “Issues with Section 232 and Section 301 entries presumably contributed to the reductions,” the report said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 7-11 in case they were missed.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and nine other Democratic senators who wrote to him in October (see 1810230020) that there are no plans to allow for exemptions on the third round of Section 301 tariffs at the current rate. Those tariffs, now set at 10 percent on about 5,700 tariff lines that accounted for about $200 billion in Chinese imports in 2017, will jump to 25 percent March 2 if no deal is reached with China. Lighthizer said in his response, sent Jan. 11, that an exemption process will be implemented if the tariffs increase to 25 percent. A White House official had previously said there would be no exemptions for the 10 percent list (see 1812030042).
The Court of International Trade could be a venue for at least two more big cases involving constitutional implications this year, Crowell & Moring lawyer Daniel Cannistra said in the firm's litigation forecast for 2019. The next challenge may involve the Section 301 tariffs and whether a president "can unilaterally rewrite the tariff schedule for the purpose of negotiating trade agreements," Cannistra said. "The other constitutional issues that appear to be on the CIT’s horizon include the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is sure to contain questions concerning executive authority over trade." The CIT is currently considering the constitutionality of the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum (see 1812190044), and that case is "likely to be resolved in 2019," Cannistra said. According to Cannistra, "the consequences of these decisions will be profound. For example, if the CIT upholds one of these administration trade policies, what will it mean to a company’s global supply chain? Will production need to be relocated from one country to another? These shifts are not made overnight; the court’s decisions will affect companies for years."
Some new tariff provisions in the 2019 edition of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule have already been implemented, despite the ongoing partial federal government shutdown and the resulting lack of any official version published by the International Trade Commission. According to documents recently posted by the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, changes affect classification for infant footwear, aluminum foil and paper, among other products. Extensive changes were also made to units of measure throughout the tariff schedule. On the other hand, changes made by a recent presidential proclamation, including the removal of African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) benefits for Mauritania, have yet to be implemented by CBP, the NCBFAA has said. The following is a summary of the purported changes to the tariff schedule:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reiterated that he will evaluate the president's authority to impose tariffs under Section 232, saying, "I do not believe that we should alienate our allies with tariffs disguised as national security protections." Grassley released a statement Jan. 9 on his priorities for the new Congress. He also said, "I’m not fond of the Section 301 tariffs on products from China, but I agree with the reasons they’ve been applied. I’ll continue to engage with the Administration on the ongoing trade dispute with China in hopes that negotiations will result in a change in China’s discriminatory policies and practices and an easing of tariffs and tensions. The World Trade Organization is also on his to-do list. "I have great interest in reforming and strengthening the WTO, which is a clearinghouse for our rules-based international trading system. I plan to work closely with the administration and our allies to strengthen the ability of the WTO to more effectively meet the demands of our global economy."
Continued economic "prosperity" is no "foregone conclusion” amid the broadly held concern about the impact to the U.S. economy of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and “corresponding retaliation against U.S. exports, said Americans for Free Trade in a Jan. 9 “welcome” letter to newly elected and returning members of Congress. “We agree that China must be held to account for its violations of our trade laws and the international trade obligations all nations share,” said the coalition, whose 150 members include multiple associations of customs brokers. “Imposition of a tariff of up to 25 percent on $250 billion worth of China products -- and the threat to impose a similar duty on $267 billion more of such products -- will not remedy the situation. We continue to see stories on a daily basis about companies, both large and small, who are being harmed by these tariffs.” The coalition urges Congress to “exercise its oversight role on trade policy matters to prevent further harm to U.S. workers, consumers, and families that will result from both the existing and proposed tariffs,” it said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the new Senate Finance Committee chairman, said that while there's room for Democrats to get some of their priorities in the new NAFTA, he thinks President Donald Trump should play hardball if Democrats insist on reopening negotiations. "I want to sit down and talk to those Democrats and see what they have in mind, because surely they can't have in mind renegotiating. But there's things we can do, like side letters on what our feeling is about it," he said. "If they're reaching the point where you gotta go back to the negotiating table, I would encourage the president to pull out of NAFTA, and hope that they're smart enough not to let that happen."