While the Biden administration faces very little legal constraint to continuing the Section 301 tariffs on the vast majority of Chinese imports, trade experts at the Wiley firm said that the administration is under pressure for a variety of reasons to make a decision on whether they are going to change their approach to the tariffs. So far, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has reinstated fewer than 500 exclusions, either due to the COVID-19 pandemic or to a limited review, and has not offered to renew the bulk of the 2,129 exclusions that were granted during the previous administration.
The Biden administration's approach to changing Section 301 tariffs is "a work in progress," said Sarah Bianchi, a deputy U.S. trade representative, while at a May 11 National Council of Textile Organizations conference. Her comments, which avoided directly answering a question of whether the administration position is that tariffs on apparel are not strategic, came a day after President Joe Biden told reporters that administration officials are discussing whether any Section 301 tariffs should be lowered or removed, "and no decision has been made on it."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 2-8:
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.
Sidley lawyer Ted Murphy says he doesn't expect a review of Section 301 tariffs to lead to a policy change on the tariffs, which cover about $300 billion worth of Chinese imports annually. He said that even though a review of the tariffs has to evaluate how effective the actions have been, and has to analyze how the tariffs have affected consumers, "if it ultimately concludes that the additional duties have been only mildly effective and/or have had a negative impact on U.S. interests (businesses and/or consumers), there is no requirement that the USTR take any action. As a result, we do not think that this effort is likely to present a meaningful opportunity for change." Murphy wrote those sentences in bold, for emphasis. Still, he said it is possible, given the messages from some corners of the administration that goods such as bicycles or apparel should not be facing higher tariffs, that "additional duties on certain non-strategic consumer goods may be lifted."
The International Trade Commission will produce a report by March 15 next year on the economic impact of Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on U.S. prices, trade and production in the industries most affected by the tariffs. The commission announced that it will hold a public hearing on July 21, and that requests to appear at that hearing should be filed by July 6. It also will accept written submissions on the topic through Aug. 24.
Slightly more than half of senators want language instructing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to reopen a broad exclusion process for China tariffs to make it into the compromise China package, according to a late-night vote May 4. Unlike most votes in Congress, support did not break down mostly along party lines. One independent who caucuses with Democrats and 23 Democrats, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., voted for the motion to instruct negotiators to include the language in the final bill; 29 Republicans, also voted for it, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Indiana's Todd Young, one of the original movers to get the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., asked for the motion, and he is also on the conference committee to blend USICA and the House China package. There were four senators absent from the vote.
Hours before the Senate was due to consider his non-binding instruction to negotiators on the China package to retain language directing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to reopen a Section 301 exclusion process, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., warned that if USTR didn't open such a process if the language becomes law, he would see that as a misuse of power.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 25 - May 1:
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.