Some major industry associations are “deeply concerned” that the process for requesting product exclusions from Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum “is not working well,” they said in comments to the Bureau of Industry and Security on the agency’s interim procedures. “The deficiencies in the product exclusion request process are negatively impacting U.S. manufacturers and their ability to obtain product exclusions in a timely and efficient manner,” said the National Foreign Trade Council, one of those industry groups, in a press release.
More than 1,000 of the 1,300 tariff lines on the list of products that could be affected by Section 301 tariffs would impact General Electric's operations, but the company is asking for just 34 items to be removed from the list. On May 16, during the second day of the International Trade Commission's public hearing to help it refine the list of products subject to 25 percent tariffs, Karan Bhatia, who leads GE's government affairs and policy office, suggested the committee exclude intra-company inputs from owned and controlled Chinese factories because those don't involve forced technology transfer, something the Section 301 tariffs are meant to address. He suggested items that have high U.S. content by value that come from China also should be excluded.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for May 7-11 in case they were missed.
A wide range of industries asked to be spared -- or protected -- in the first day of the International Trade Commission's public hearing that will hear from more than 120 companies, a major union, and trade groups, including those from China. The panel is tasked with refining the list of products subject to 25 percent tariffs, which accounted for $50 billion in imports last year. The size of the action was shaped by an estimate of the cost to U.S. companies of forced tech transfer, market access restrictions and intellectual property theft.
The combination of World Trade Organization rules for Most Favored Nation treatment and bound tariff rates leave the U.S. at a disadvantage within trade negotiations, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said during a May 14 speech at the National Press Club. "We are now constrained by two sides of a WTO pincer," he said. The MFN, which requires level tariff rates for countries the U.S. doesn't have free trade agreements with, and Bound Tariff Rates, the ceiling on allowed tariff levels, "prevent us from having reciprocal tariffs because, in most cases, our bound rate ceiling is at or near our very low MFN applied rate, while other nations have higher levels of both." President Donald Trump has mentioned the possibility of implementing a "reciprocal tax" (see 1802120034).
Two pro-trade Democrats, a Freedom Caucus member and a retiring moderate Republican have banded together to introduce a bill meant to curtail executive power on trade proceedings. The bill would create a process similar to the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to nullify recently completed rulemakings, for trade measures. "It’s time that Congress steps up to the plate, and uses the powers granted by our Constitution to collaboratively shape U.S. trade policy,” lead sponsor Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., said in a statement announcing the bill's introduction May 10.
The Trump administration looks set to continue its focus on deregulation, judging by its recently released Spring 2018 unified regulatory agenda. Regulatory agencies with a hand in trade laid out their plans to harmonize and streamline regulatory requirements, including on Lacey Act implementation, a modernized seafood inspection program and an update to Toxic Substances Control Act chemical data reporting requirements. On the other hand, regulatory plans also include enforcement measures, including procedures for Commerce scope rulings during CBP investigations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion and increased oversight over organic imports.
The process for importers to get product exclusions from Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum items is too slow, and too burdensome, according to 39 members of the House of Representatives, from both parties, who have suggestions for how to change it. Their letter, sent May 7 to the Department of Commerce, says that retroactive relief from tariffs should date back to the date of submission, not the date of posting, unless the submission was not initially complete. In that case, the lawmakers say, the refund should be from the date the submission was complete, rather than the date it was publicly posted.
The Court of International Trade on May 3 dismissed a steel importer’s challenge of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products. Severstal Export Miami, its affiliate Severstal Export GmbH, and the U.S. government had agreed to the dismissal, after CIT in April denied Severstal’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop imposition of the 25 percent tariff on Severstal’s imports. Severstal agreed to dismissal with prejudice, so it won’t be able to bring its claims again at CIT. The court had told Severstal that the case would be unlikely to succeed, noting that Section 232 gives the president the discretion to impose Section 232 tariffs even for economic threats to national security (see 1804060028).
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for April 30 - May 4 in case they were missed.