Blueberry growers, importers and distributors have formed a trade group called The Blueberry Coalition for Progress & Health to argue that there should not be tariffs or quotas on imported blueberries. In a Jan. 6 press release, the group said that 80% of imported fresh blueberries enter either before U.S. production begins in earnest in late April or after it peters out in early September. They said that even though there is some U.S. production competing with imports, even Georgia only sells 10% of its crop before that peak period. But Florida competes most directly with Mexican imports, and Florida representatives had pushed for trade remedies to protect them (see 2009020016). The International Trade Commission will hear from those for and against trade restrictions on blueberries on Jan. 12.
President Donald Trump signed into law an act that requires the Department of Homeland Security to submit a plan within 180 days of how it can get to 100% high-throughput scanning of freight rail and commercial and passenger vehicles using large-scale, non-intrusive inspection systems. The Securing American Ports Act was signed on Jan. 5. The agency is to tell Congress how much of the traffic is currently scanned, the personnel assigned to those efforts, and seizure data on contraband discovered by that scanning. The report should create benchmarks on how to get to 100% scanning within six years, and the costs to get there, in both government spending and suspected delays. After the first report is submitted, DHS is to update Congress one year later on progress, then again every other year.
On the day that additional 25% tariffs were scheduled to go into effect on French handbags and cosmetics, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and CBP made no public statement about the tariffs' fate, leaving importers in the dark about what they should do.
Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Mark Warner, D-Va., said Jan. 4 that they strongly encourage European Union officials “to delay any agreement with China so that the next Congress and president can work alongside them in ending China’s illegal and unfair trade practices and threats to global supply chain integrity.” Some trade negotiators worry that the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (see 2012300030) will allow China to divide and conquer. “America’s go-it-alone approach to trade over the past four years has harmed American workers, consumers, and businesses, all of whom have paid the cost of various punitive tariff campaigns,” the senators said in a statement, adding it also undermined America's global standing and slowed economic growth. “It is encouraging that President-elect [Joe] Biden would like the European Union to wait until he takes office to finalize an investment deal with China. A multilateral approach is necessary to confront China on issues like its abusive labor conditions, unfair and opaque subsidies, forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and more,” they said.
Less than 12 hours before the effective date of tariffs promised on French handbags, soaps and cosmetics (see 2007130043), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was silent on whether the tariffs will be going up on Jan. 6. One official at USTR who was not authorized to speak to the press said, “I'm not sure anyone could answer that question at this juncture.” The media affairs office did not respond to questions.
The National Association of Beverage Importers accused the U.S. trade representative of throwing gasoline on the fire of the Airbus-Boeing dispute on his way out the door (see 2012310010). “The rationale of the timing selected by the EU Commission for the timing of the trade volume determination is a technical argument at best and one that does not merit the potential risk of the EU simply retaliating,” NABI President Robert Tobiassen said in an emailed news release Dec. 31.
Wendy Cutler, the lead negotiator for the Trans Pacific Partnership, and James Green, who was the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's senior official in China, are questioning whether a new European Union-China investment agreement will undercut the united front President-elect Joe Biden wants on Chinese economic abuses.
Witnesses overwhelmingly argued against tariffs on Vietnamese imports, during a virtual hearing Dec. 29 hosted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, with numerous business representatives saying it was the choice not to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, not any kind of currency issue, that makes it harder for U.S. exports to penetrate Vietnam. Trade groups representing importers from Vietnam noted that their members moved sourcing from China to Vietnam precisely to avoid Section 301 tariffs, and some said putting comparable tariffs on Vietnamese imports would cause companies to relocate back to China.
Witnesses from the furniture and cabinet sector in both Vietnam and the U.S. argued that Vietnam has greatly improved its governance over illegal imports of tropical wood and, to whatever degree illegal imports still exist, that wood is not then exported to U.S. buyers.
Metal importers and a senior Republican staffer in the House of Representatives agreed that the Commerce Department's revisions to its Section 232 exclusions process are somewhat of an improvement, but they diverge in their opinions of how helpful the changes will be for the industry. The revisions were announced in an interim final rule published Dec. 14 (see 2012100047); some elements have already taken effect, and others take effect Dec. 29. However, the agency is still accepting comments on the revisions through Feb. 12, 2021.