Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and a half-dozen Republican colleagues told President Donald Trump that the decline in the stock market since October is due partly to higher tariffs, and they used his own words against him to argue that steel and aluminum tariffs should be lifted on Canada and Mexico. Their letter, sent Jan. 28, starts by quoting a Trump tweet from March 2018 that said steel and aluminum tariffs in North America "will only come off if a new & fair NAFTA agreement is signed." They noted that he signed the new NAFTA at the end of November, but that the tariffs haven't been lifted.
Leaders of auto, aluminum and farm interest groups are all pushing for the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to be lifted on Canada and Mexico, as the administration said would happen once NAFTA was renegotiated. But none of the groups will make their support for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement contingent on the tariffs being lifted.
After the March 1 deadline, President Donald Trump could declare victory in the trade war, or his administration could decide the Chinese have not offered substantial changes in response to America's complaints about industrial policies and discrimination against U.S. firms. "It probably depends on what he's seen on Fox News this morning," Center for Strategic and International Studies' William Reinsch said at a CSIS program on Asia in 2019 on Jan. 23. Still, he said, Trump has a pattern of "lots of bluster, lots of threats, occasional use of a threat, and then at the end of the day, he tends to settle for much less than he asked for."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 14-20:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 14-18 in case they were missed.
Three steel importers recently filed a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade alleging that an increase in Section 232 tariffs on steel products from Turkey to 50 percent is unconstitutional and violates statutory requirements. In a complaint filed Jan. 17, MedTrade, Transpacific Steel and A.G. Royce Metal Marketing (dba Concrete Reinforcing Products) seek a court order stopping implementation of the tariff increase and refunding any duties collected above the 25 percent applicable to other countries.
The Council of the European Union passed its negotiating directives for free trade talks with the U.S. on Jan. 18, and as expected, agriculture is not part of the scope. The EU also said it would require the lifting of the Section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel before any deal is finalized. "These two proposed negotiating directives will enable the Commission to work on removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to transatlantic trade in industrial goods, key goals of the July Joint Statement," EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said.
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.
A bill that would delay the imposition of Section 232 tariffs on imported autos and auto parts until the International Trade Commission evaluates the industry was reintroduced in the Senate Jan. 15 by its co-sponsors Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala. Jones and Alexander introduced their first bill in July last year (see 1807250048). The ITC is closed during the partial federal government shutdown, and any such comprehensive study would likely have to wait until after the ITC evaluation of the economic benefits of the new NAFTA. The Commerce Department is supposed to make its recommendation to President Donald Trump in mid-February.
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."