Some companies said in recently submitted comments they used to benefit from Section 232 tariffs but no longer do. Others said they previously were able to mitigate the cost impact of Section 301 tariffs through exclusions, finding other suppliers or other trade benefits but can't anymore.
CBP created Harmonized System Update (HSU) 2223 Aug. 12, containing 1,062 ABI records and 196 Harmonized Tariff Schedule records. The changes involve updates to United Kingdom aluminum tariff rate quotas, it said in a CSMS message.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 1-7:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo acknowledged that lifting Section 301 tariffs is one of the few levers the White House has to lower inflation right now, but implied that President Joe Biden is hesitating because unions are arguing it would hurt workers.
Importers of finished goods and manufacturing inputs told the International Trade Commission across three days of testimony that the Section 301 tariffs are damaging profit margins, and in some cases lead to layoffs. But some unions and manufacturers said the Section 301 tariffs are deserved for Chinese abuses, and with the tariffs in place, the goods they make are more competitive. The International Trade Commission is studying the efficacy of Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs, and their economic impact.
Across three days of testimony July 20-22, the International Trade Commission heard from dozens of companies, trade groups and advocacy groups about the economic impact of Section 301 tariffs and Section 232 tariffs and quotas. The tariffs and quotas on metals inspired fewer witnesses than the China tariffs, but they were no less emphatic.The United Steelworkers said they strongly supported the tariffs and asked that they remain strong. Pete Trinidad, president of a USW local that represents 3,500 steel workers in Indiana, argued that the tariffs had either a small or no measurable effect on prices, according to a think tank study.
Consumer tech products imported from China bore more than $32 billion in Section 301 tariff exposure between July 2018, when the first of the tariffs took effect, and December 2021, without dissuading most U.S. importers to abandon Chinese sourcing, according to a newly released Consumer Technology Association report produced with Trade Partnership Worldwide. A CTA spokesperson said July 20 that the association released the report to coincide with this week's public hearing at the International Trade Commission as part of its investigation on the economic impact of the Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on U.S. industries.
The International Trade Commission published notices in the July 19 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent or other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):