The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative posted a list of frequently asked questions to raise importers' guard against Section 301 investigation scams. Though someone from USTR may need to contact importers for "official business," the agency will never demand "immediate payment" from the public. it said. "Be on the lookout for someone promising a benefit in exchange for personal information or money." Other "red flags" to watch for include emails purporting to come from USTR but bearing addresses not from a government agency. It urged anyone suspecting Section 301 fraud to file a complaint with the FTC. USTR didn't respond to a request for comment.

Few details were released by either side about Wednesday’s virtual meeting between U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier Liu He. Their “introductory” caucus featured a “candid exchange” about the Biden administration’s “worker-centered” trade policy and Tai’s “ongoing review of the U.S.-China trade relationship, while also raising issues of concern,” said a USTR agency readout. The U.S. and China “engaged in candid, pragmatic and constructive communication with an attitude of equality and mutual respect,” said a Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesperson Thursday. “Believing that bilateral trade is of great significance, the two sides exchanged views on issues of common concern, and agreed to keep in contact,” he said. Tai’s agency is running a “top-to-bottom review” of U.S. trade and economic policy toward China, including the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, with no “timeline” for its completion, she told a House Ways and Means Committee hearing last week (see 2105140023).

Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Jason Crow, D-Colo., introduced the Manufacturing Abilities Determine Economies (Made) in the Americas Act that would incentivize moving supply chains that are concentrated in Asia to either the U.S. or some allies. The bill would prioritize free trade agreements beneficial to the U.S. "Given the complexity of market forces, we are likely unable to bring all these manufacturing operations to the U.S., which is why this legislation would incentivize moving operations to our allies in the Western Hemisphere as a secondary priority," Kinzinger said Wednesday.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai has “no specific timeline” for her agency’s completion of its “top-to-bottom” review of U.S. trade and economic policy toward China (see 2105130054), she told a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Thursday on President Joe Biden’s trade policy agenda. “This is our opportunity to assess the overall situation and to formulate some thoughtful policies that are going to lay out a strategy for where we are going to go,” Tai told Rep. Drew Ferguson, R-Ga. The Section 301 tariffs and tariff exclusions on Chinese imports “will be important components of this review,” she said. “I hope that you will see soon some more specific details on next steps, which I’m not in a position to share as of right now and today.”

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is doing a “top-to-bottom review” of the U.S.-China “trade and economic relationship” through the agency’s “lens,” USTR Katherine Tai told a Thursday House Ways and Means Committee hearing on President Joe Biden’s trade policy agenda. This began at the request of Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who did a similar study when he was USTR under President George W. Bush, said Tai. “This is a really important opportunity” to look at “all the components” here, including phase one trade agreement, Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports and tariff exclusions, she said. It gives her agency the chance to “strategically think through what are the components going to be of an effective strategy,” she said. “What in what we have right now is effective? What can be more effective, and how do we turn the direction of this very important challenge towards a vision that is going to serve the interests of the U.S. economy today, in the medium term and also in the long term?”

The Biden-Harris administration should settle the massive Section 301 litigation that’s inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade and “alleviate the economic and social harms” the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs have caused to U.S. companies, workers and the “overall U.S. economy,” about 225 of the litigation’s more than 6,000 plaintiffs wrote President Joe Biden May 7. All the cases allege the tariffs violate the 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act and should be vacated and the duties refunded, said the letter. Plaintiffs are confident the court “will agree,” it said. HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plaintiffs in the court’s designated Section 301 sample case, were lead signatories to the letter, signed mostly by small importers, but also big companies, including HP, Volkswagen and TCT Mobile, TCL’s smartphone subsidiary. Akin Gump attorneys for HMTX-Jasco declined comment Wednesday, but they made no secret in court proceedings of their desire to see the litigation move forward as expeditiously as possible because the tariffs continue to be a daily burden on importers with Lists 3 and 4A exposure. We learned that a draft of the letter was circulated to plaintiffs about a month ago, but many declined to sign because they viewed a White House settlement agreement to refund billions in paid tariffs as a long shot. Others never had the opportunity to review the draft. The White House didn’t comment.

A list of “principles” will set the “foundation for a high transparency standard” the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will follow, said the agency Friday. USTR is committed “to comprehensive public engagement, including outreach to historically overlooked and underrepresented communities, as it develops and implements a trade policy that advances the interests of all Americans,” it said. “USTR will seek public input with respect to new major trade initiatives when feasible even when not required.” Reforming the Section 301 tariff exclusions process on Chinese imports would be “very high on my radar,” if confirmed, “in terms of assessing the process that’s in place for exclusions” and the “decision-making” on them, then-USTR nominee Katherine Tai told her confirmation hearing (see 2102250043). “Transparency and predictability and due process are all critical to the way we want our government to function.”

U.S. retail ports handled 2.27 million 20-foot containers or their equivalents in March, up 21.2% from February, reported the National Retail Federation Friday. It was the highest single-month volume since NRF began tracking imports in 2002, it said. “Despite the continuing pandemic, most consumers are in good financial health and aren’t hesitating to spend,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF vice president-supply chain and customs. “More spending translates into more merchandise arriving at our ports as retailers continue to meet increasing demand.” The March volume was up 64.9% from 2020, but the year-over-year growth “was artificially high because many Asian factories had shut down” in March 2020 due to COVID-19, and “most U.S. stores were being ordered to close,” said NRF.

Nike shoes that include Bluetooth connectivity are classifiable as shoes, not Bluetooth wearables, said Customs and Border Protection in a Friday ruling. Nike had argued the shoes should be classified based on their Bluetooth transceivers, similar to smartwatches that rely on Bluetooth connectivity and are imported under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's 8517.62 subheading. "Wearable 'smart' technology is a growing segment of the marketplace," CBP said. "Without a doubt, these types of goods will require individual, or case-by-case, analyses in order to determine their essential character." Jeffrey Whalen, a lawyer for Nike, requested the tariff classification ruling. Nike says the shoe's Bluetooth transceiving system "imparts its essential character" and makes "the article 'what it is' in the eyes of the consumer." The agency disagreed, saying the shoe's wireless capability “is a support function and not the essential character when viewing the electronic module on its own."

Trade groups whose members would pay foreign digital services taxes and those whose members would have to pay if tariffs are hiked up to 25% on products from the countries imposing DSTs agree the levies are wrong and government should use full persuasive power to convince countries like India, the U.K. and Spain not to impose these taxes. Tech groups split on whether tariffs are the right tool to convince countries to roll back or never pass DSTs. The Computer & Communications Industry Association gave the most direct support of levying tariffs on DST countries. In testimony at a virtual Office of the U.S. Trade Representative hearing Monday, CCIA Policy Counsel Rachael Stelly said USTR should work for a global international taxes solution and impose tariffs “to deter countries and send a strong message. CCIA "takes seriously the impact that tariffs can have," she said. "Tariffs should only be used in limited circumstances, in a targeted manner, and where there is a clear strategy in place designed to change the behavior of a trading partner. USTR’s proposed action appears to meet this standard.” Internet Association Director-Trade Policy Jordan Haas said IA has no position on the proposed retaliatory tariffs and hopes duties will never be levied because ideally, countries will roll back DST laws. He's concerned more countries are thinking of imposing such taxes. The App Association opposed tariffs, concerned targeted countries could retaliate and its small company members would be hurt. Representatives from the Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation and others spoke against the tariffs.