International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 19-23 in case they were missed.

CBP has assessed more than $10.3 billion in duties under the recent major trade remedies started during the Trump administration as of Nov. 20, a CBP spokeswoman said. That marks an increase in assessed duties of more than $3 billion since the previous CBP update with numbers from about a month ago (see 1811210013). Most of that increase stems from the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China, which now account for about $5.8 billion in assessed duties, she said. The first tranche of Section 301 tariffs took effect on July 6 (see 1807050033); the second list took effect on Aug. 23 (see 1808070046); and the third, on Sept. 24 (see 1809240015). CBP also has assessed about $3.1 billion under the Section 232 tariffs on steel and $991 million under tariffs on aluminum, the spokeswoman said. The Section 201 trade remedies on washing machines and solar cells (see 1801230052) account for $489 million in assessed tariffs, she said.

Despite three rounds of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., China “fundamentally” hasn’t curbed its unfair trade practices “and indeed appears to have taken further unreasonable actions in recent months,” alleged an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 53-page “update” report Tuesday. One big question is whether release of the report negates a key CTA legal argument that USTR Robert Lighthizer ran afoul of the 1974 Trade Act when he imposed the third tranche of “retaliatory” tariffs without conducting a new Section 301 enforcement investigation.

Import freight costs remained “elevated” in November, mainly in reaction to the Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, reported IHS Markit Wednesday. “Over the summer, carriers cut capacity on trans-Pacific and Asia-European routes just as demand ramped up quickly and unexpectedly,” said IHS. The announcement of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods caused importers to “rush in” shipments ahead of the implementation date, “resulting in the peak shipping season moving up one month to July rather than August,” it said. “Since then, volumes have retreated and carriers are keeping additional capacity available through the end of the year to accommodate any uptick in demand” associated with the tariff rates increasing to 25 percent from 10 percent on Jan. 1, it said.

“Macro uncertainty,” rather than actual changes in buying behavior, characterizes the market mood as companies brace for the Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports to rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1, said Analog Devices CEO Vincent Roche on a Tuesday earnings call. “I’ve talked with quite a few customers” over the past two quarters, and most are “remaining optimistic, though there is obviously concern, which is dampening enthusiasm” for capital expenditures, said Roche. Though cancellations and lead times “for the most part are pretty normal,” there are “pockets of softness” throughout the market, he said. “I don’t get any sense that there’s any form of tension or panic-buying” to beat the higher tariffs, he said.

CBP has assessed more than $7.1 billion in duties under the recent major trade remedies started during the Trump administration as of mid-October, a CBP spokeswoman said. That includes $3.4 billion in duties from the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China as of Oct. 17, she said. The first tranche of Section 301 tariffs took effect on July 6 (see 1807050033); the second list took effect on Aug. 23 (see 1808070046); and the third, on Sept. 24 (see 1809240015). CBP also has assessed about $2.6 billion under the Section 232 tariffs on steel and $738 million under tariffs on aluminum as of Oct. 16, the spokeswoman said. The Section 201 trade remedies on washing machines and solar cells (see 1801230052) account for $416 million in assessed tariffs as of Oct. 16, she said.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released a 53-page update to the Section 301 investigation that says there has been no fundamental change in China's "acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, and indeed [it] appears to have taken further unreasonable actions in recent months." This Nov. 20 report, which comes 10 days before USTR Robert Lighthizer, President Donald Trump and other administration officials meet with China's president and negotiators, seems to counterbalance Trump's sunnier tone of late (see 1811190032).

Best Buy shares held up against the market’s Tuesday plunge, closing up 2.2 percent at $63.55 after the company reported higher-than-expected sales for Q3 ended Oct. 28. Best Buy also raised its full-year sales forecast to $42.5 billion-$42.9 billion, from $42.3 billion-$42.7 billion. Sales were $42.2 billion last fiscal year.

Best Buy CEO Hubert Joly estimated that some 7 percent, or $2.3 billion, of the total cost of goods sold were affected by the 10 percent tariffs imposed at the end of September under Section 301, he said during a Nov. 20 Q3 earnings call. Many of the products on that list of goods were accessories, he said. Costs have been mitigated “in a variety of ways” and the impact affects a “very small portion of our business,” he said. Looking to Jan. 1, when tariffs are scheduled to rise to 25 percent, Joly said his personal view is that “the journey may not be linear, [but] the negotiations with China will progress,” and Best Buy is working with vendors to reduce the effects if tariffs do rise at the first of next year.

The exemption from Section 301 tariffs for goods entered as Section 321 de minimis shipments amounts to a "loophole" that blunts the intended effects of the tariffs, said Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, in a Nov. 20 post on the conservative website LifeZette. "It’s a rather strange decision by CBP," Stumo said. "The administration had imposed a tariff on thousands of products that fall within the Section 301 list. But CBP then decided that, as long as an importer brings in less than $800 worth of an item on a particular day, no duties will be collected." Stumo alleged that there's no "statutory or regulatory foundation for the decision, and it contradicts the administration’s goal of changing China’s behavior."