International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A proposed formula for apportioning the value of tooling assists to imported auto parts can’t be used by an importer because it doesn’t take into consideration the country of origin of the imported parts and so fails to account for the possibility that they could be subject to additional Section 301 and Section 232 duties, CBP said in a ruling released March 27.
Electronic goods with Chinese components such as notebooks, laptops and modems reimported to the U.S after undergoing repairs in Mexico are still subject to Section 301 tariffs on the repairs, even though the repairs are duty free under USMCA, CBP said in a February ruling.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai reassured the members of the National Council of Textile Organizations that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has no interest in loosening rules of origin for clothing made in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Some have argued that the CAFTA-DR has not lived up to its potential because its rules are too restrictive (see 2112030045 and 2104140047).
In more than four hours of questioning during a hearing March 24 before the House Ways and Means Committee, no member of Congress advocated for lessening tariffs on Chinese goods under Section 301, or for reopening exclusions applications.
Almost five years after the first round of 25% tariffs were put on Chinese imports, it was trade irritants with Mexico and India, as well as concerns about tariff preference programs and the lack of a market-opening strategy, that senators dwelled on during the U.S. Trade Representative's appearance in front of the Finance Committee.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade upheld the U.S. Trade Representative's Lists 3 and 4A tariff action under Section 301 on China in a widely-anticipated decision on March 17. After the tariffs were previously sent back over concerns of compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, the USTR offered further explanations of its tariff decisions. Judges Mark Barnet, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that these explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.