With the publication of the Office of U.S. Trade Representative’s notice in Wednesday’s Federal Register on procedures for requesting exclusions from Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 1807080001), docket USTR-2018-0025 for posting such requests became active in the regulations.gov portal. No requests were posted yet by our Friday deadline. Exclusion requests are due by Oct. 9, and if granted will apply for a year retroactively to July 6, said the notice. Once a request is posted, the public will have 14 days to file responses to that request, it said. After that 14-day period, “interested persons” will have seven days to reply to those responses, it said. Though Oct. 9 is the deadline for the exclusion requests, “international trade team” lawyers at BakerHostetler are “advising clients to file as soon as possible in anticipation of the large administrative backlog that they expect.” Though the Trump administration’s threat to impose 10 percent tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports (see 1807110034) “doesn't necessarily raise the risk of an all-out trade war, the tariffs would affect some industries and individual corporate borrowers,” said S&P Global Friday. Together with the 25 percent tariffs enacted July 6 on $34 billion in Chinese imports and the proposal to impose tariffs on another $16 billion in goods, “the total amount of $250 billion now represents about half the value of China's annual exports to the U.S.,” it said. The absence of an immediate “tit-for-tat” retaliatory response from China “lends hope to the belief that China-U.S. trade negotiations aren't completely off the table,” said S&P. “We are obviously not sanguine about the risk. Our current base-case assumption is that the tariffs, if imposed, will not likely greatly affect either economy. However, they would affect some industries and individual corporations.” The U.S.-China friction already is contributing to “jitters in the financial markets and is coloring business investment decisions,” said S&P. If China wants to retaliate with tariffs on U.S. goods, it “can’t match” the $200 billion figure because American imports to China totaled only $130 billion last year, it said: “Should China opt to pursue non-tariff actions that affect services and investments, it could damage global business and consumer confidence, investment prospects, and growth.”

The Section 301 tariffs on goods from China do not apply to covered imports that are part of a set if that set is classified under a subheading that is not included in the Section 301 list, CBP told the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America. "If the product that imparts the essential character to the set (i.e., the [Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.] under which the entire set is classified) is covered by the Section 301 remedy, then the entire set will be subject to the additional 25% duties," CBP told the NCBFAA. "If the HTSUS under which the entire set is classified is not covered by the Section 301 remedies, but the set contains a component that is classified in a subheading covered by the 301 list, the 301 duties will not be assessed on the individual component at this time."

The Chinese Embassy in Washington released a 1,300-word statement Thursday accusing U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer of “slander” for alleging that China uses unfair trade practices to gain advantages over its U.S. trade competitors. In announcing a new round of proposed 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs Tuesday on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods (see 1807110034), Lighthizer called China’s trade practices “an existential threat to America’s most critical comparative advantage and the future of our economy.” The retaliatory actions China took in response to the tariffs that took effect July 6 were "without any international legal basis or justification," said Lighthizer. The Chinese shot back, calling Lighthizer’s statement “a distortion of facts” and his accusations “groundless.” Any “underlying problems in the American economy and society are purely caused by domestic, structural reasons in the US,” said the embassy. China since February “engaged in four rounds of high-level economic talks with the US,” and reached “important consensus” on “strengthening trade and economic cooperation and avoiding a trade war,” it said. “But due to domestic politics, the US has gone back on its words, brazenly abandoned the bilateral consensus, and insisted on fighting a trade war with China. China has done its utmost to prevent the escalation of trade frictions. The United States is fully responsible for the current situation.” The tariffs the Trump administration implemented or proposed are “typical unilateralism, protectionism and trade bullying,” and are a “clear violation” of the basic World Trade Organization “principle of most-favored-nation treatment as well as the basic spirit and principles of international law,” said the embassy. That China was “forced to take” retaliatory “counteractions” against the tariffs was “an inevitable choice to defend national interest and global interest, and is perfectly rightful, reasonable and lawful," it said. Lighthizer's office didn't comment.

Over a two-day review at the World Trade Organization on China's trade policies, China insisted that intellectual property violations are no longer a major issue; that its support of state-owned enterprises is no different from Fannie Mae; and that its overcapacity in steel is not a problem for global steel prices, because China only exports 9 percent of its steel. Moreover, China's Commerce Vice Minister Wang Shouwen said, addressing overcapacity needs collective actions and China stands ready to join hands with other countries to tackle this problem together.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington released a 1,300-word statement Thursday accusing U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer of “slander” for alleging that China uses unfair trade practices to gain advantages over its U.S. trade competitors. In announcing a new round of proposed 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs Tuesday on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods (see 1807110034), Lighthizer called China’s trade practices “an existential threat to America’s most critical comparative advantage and the future of our economy.” The retaliatory actions China took in response to the tariffs that took effect July 6 were "without any international legal basis or justification," said Lighthizer. The Chinese shot back, calling Lighthizer’s statement “a distortion of facts” and his accusations “groundless.” Any “underlying problems in the American economy and society are purely caused by domestic, structural reasons in the US,” said the embassy. China since February “engaged in four rounds of high-level economic talks with the US,” and reached “important consensus” on “strengthening trade and economic cooperation and avoiding a trade war,” it said. “But due to domestic politics, the US has gone back on its words, brazenly abandoned the bilateral consensus, and insisted on fighting a trade war with China. China has done its utmost to prevent the escalation of trade frictions. The United States is fully responsible for the current situation.” The tariffs the Trump administration implemented or proposed are “typical unilateralism, protectionism and trade bullying,” and are a “clear violation” of the basic World Trade Organization “principle of most-favored-nation treatment as well as the basic spirit and principles of international law,” said the embassy. That China was “forced to take” retaliatory “counteractions” against the tariffs was “an inevitable choice to defend national interest and global interest, and is perfectly rightful, reasonable and lawful," it said. Lighthizer's office didn't comment.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington released a 1,300-word statement Thursday accusing U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer of “slander” for alleging that China uses unfair trade practices to gain advantages over its U.S. trade competitors. In announcing a new round of proposed 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs Tuesday on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods (see 1807110034), Lighthizer called China’s trade practices “an existential threat to America’s most critical comparative advantage and the future of our economy.” The retaliatory actions China took in response to the tariffs that took effect July 6 were "without any international legal basis or justification," said Lighthizer. The Chinese shot back, calling Lighthizer’s statement “a distortion of facts” and his accusations “groundless.” Any “underlying problems in the American economy and society are purely caused by domestic, structural reasons in the US,” said the embassy. China since February “engaged in four rounds of high-level economic talks with the US,” and reached “important consensus” on “strengthening trade and economic cooperation and avoiding a trade war,” it said. “But due to domestic politics, the US has gone back on its words, brazenly abandoned the bilateral consensus, and insisted on fighting a trade war with China. China has done its utmost to prevent the escalation of trade frictions. The United States is fully responsible for the current situation.” The tariffs the Trump administration implemented or proposed are “typical unilateralism, protectionism and trade bullying,” and are a “clear violation” of the basic World Trade Organization “principle of most-favored-nation treatment as well as the basic spirit and principles of international law,” said the embassy. That China was “forced to take” retaliatory “counteractions” against the tariffs was “an inevitable choice to defend national interest and global interest, and is perfectly rightful, reasonable and lawful," it said. Lighthizer's office didn't comment.

The Section 301 tariffs product exclusion request process announced last week (see 1807060039) was published in the July 11 Federal Register. No changes were made since the first announcement. Requests are due Oct. 9, and, if granted, will apply from July 6, 2018, and last one year. Exclusions will be granted to all importers of the same product, whether or not the company filed a request.

Tech interests fear ripple-effect consumer harms that may result from the Trump administration’s newest proposals to impose 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports over intellectual property disagreements between the countries. The list of goods targeted for the 10 percent duties, released Tuesday in an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notice, doesn't include meaningful end-user consumer tech products like TVs. Some networking gear was included, drawing concern from Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, CompTIA, CTA, the Information Technology Industry Council and Telecommunications Industry Association.

Tech interests fear ripple-effect consumer harms that may result from the Trump administration’s newest proposals to impose 10 percent Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports over intellectual property disagreements between the countries. The list of goods targeted for the 10 percent duties, released Tuesday in an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notice, doesn't include meaningful end-user consumer tech products like TVs. Some networking gear was included, drawing concern from Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, CompTIA, CTA, the Information Technology Industry Council and Telecommunications Industry Association.

Some leaders on the House Foreign Affairs Committee intend to file legislation to remove China's Most Favored Nation status, according to Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. Poe said in a July 11 interview that Asia Subcommittee Chairman Ted Yoho and the ranking member on both subcommittees are all in agreement on the legislation. China has had MFN status with the U.S. since 1980, but that was made permanent only in 2001. In 1990, in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Congress included non-binding language suggesting the president rethink MFN for China.