The Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports are causing “a tremendous amount of pain and anguish” for consumer tech companies, and “we prefer to see the tariffs go away,” Ed Brzytwa, CTA vice president-international trade, told an International Trade Commission virtual hearing Friday. The $32 billion that CTA estimates the consumer tech industry paid Customs and Border Protection in Chinese tariffs from their 2018 inception through the end of 2021 “is nothing to sniff at,” he said.

The Court of International Trade in a July 22 order consolidated three customs cases concerning the proper classification of electric scooters, known as hoverboards. Two of the cases, including the now-lead case, were brought by 3BTech, while the remaining action was brought by Pro-Com Products. The cases were launched to argue that the hoverboards were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090, which provides for "Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dollsʼ carriages; dolls, other toys; reduced-scale ('scale') models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other," and allows subject goods to enter duty-free (see 2112100053) (3BTech Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00026).

Importers of finished goods and manufacturing inputs told the International Trade Commission across three days of testimony that the Section 301 tariffs are damaging profit margins, and in some cases lead to layoffs. But some unions and manufacturers said the Section 301 tariffs are deserved for Chinese abuses, and with the tariffs in place, the goods they make are more competitive. The International Trade Commission is studying the efficacy of Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs, and their economic impact.

Any chance the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods would stimulate U.S. importers to shift their supply chains to alternative countries of origin were obliterated when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, Jonathan Gold, National Retail Federation vice president-supply chain and customs policy, told the International Trade Commission in a virtual hearing Thursday.

Across three days of testimony July 20-22, the International Trade Commission heard from dozens of companies, trade groups and advocacy groups about the economic impact of Section 301 tariffs and Section 232 tariffs and quotas. The tariffs and quotas on metals inspired fewer witnesses than the China tariffs, but they were no less emphatic.The United Steelworkers said they strongly supported the tariffs and asked that they remain strong. Pete Trinidad, president of a USW local that represents 3,500 steel workers in Indiana, argued that the tariffs had either a small or no measurable effect on prices, according to a think tank study.

Any chances that the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods would stimulate U.S. importers to shift their supply chains to alternative countries of origin were obliterated when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, Jonathan Gold, National Retail Federation vice president-supply chain and customs policy, told the International Trade Commission in a virtual hearing July 21. The ITC completed three days of public hearings July 22 as part of its Tariff Act Section 332 investigation into the tariffs’ economic impact on U.S. industries.

Consumer tech products imported from China bore more than $32 billion in Section 301 tariff exposure between July 2018, when the first of the tariffs took effect, and December 2021, without dissuading most U.S. importers to abandon Chinese sourcing, said a newly released CTA report produced with Trade Partnership Worldwide. A CTA spokesperson said Wednesday the association released the report to coincide with this week's International Trade Commission public hearing as part of its Tariff Act Section 332 investigation (332-591) into the economic impact of the Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on U.S. industries.

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.

Battery powered flexible electronic eWriter device containing flexible pressure sensitive liquid crystal writing film are properly classified as "optical appliances" under subheading 9013.80.7000 and subject to a product exclusion under Section 301 tariffs, Kent Displays said in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kent Displays, Inc. v. U.S. CIT # 20-00156).