Export Compliance Daily is a Warren News publication.

First Commenters on 30% Tariff Hike Blast Falsehood That China Pays the Duties

Frustrations boiled over among the few whose comments were the first to be posted Wednesday in docket USTR-2019-0015 on the Trump administration’s proposal to hike by five points the first three rounds of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods to…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.

30 percent, effective Oct. 1 (see 1908290024). Several blasted President Donald Trump for falsely claiming China pays the tariffs, not U.S. importers or consumers. “The Chinese people, their government or the suppliers of the product are not paying these tariffs,” commented Christopher Grace, who gave no company or industry affiliation. “That List 4a & 4b were created instead of just 1 list, is evidence that the US government is concerned that consumers are going to be hurt.” Display Supply & Lighting (DS&L), which builds display booths for trade show exhibitors, including many at CES, needs to “immediately debunk the rhetoric that the Duty is a tax on China and is being paid by China,” wrote Vice President Robert Cohen. “This is nothing but a complete misstatement,” he said. “The Duty is being paid by our company, the Duty is being financed as part of the cost of our inventory and a portion of the Duty is then being passed along to our customer. There are no dollars from China paying any of the Duty on our products!” Cohen shared "my company’s frustration as to the amount of time the U.S. government has forced us to spend on non-revenue producing matters” involving the tariffs. DS&L spent considerable time and expense testifying against the tariffs last year at a hearing that “was nothing but a perfunctory exercise,” he wrote. It also expended “significant amounts of time” filing exclusion requests and educating employees “as to how to deal with the situation when customers contact us” to protest price increases, he said. He also resents “preparing this document which has a due date 9 days prior to the proposed imposition date of an increased duty rate," he said. Comments are due Sept. 20.