All but five of Florida's 27 members of the House of Representatives and both Senators are asking U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to initiate a Section 301 investigation on Mexican exports of fruits and vegetables.
Section 301 (too broad)
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 19 - Sept. 4:
When asked what the U.S. wants from China in economic terms, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai borrowed a metaphor from a former assistant U.S. trade representative responsible for trade negotiations between the U.S. and China. She said that he said the trade relationship with China is like two teams showing up to play football, but one is playing American football, and the other is playing what the rest of the world calls football that the U.S. calls soccer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.
The lists 1 and 2 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports didn’t terminate on the fourth anniversaries of their imposition dates, July 6 and Aug. 23, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative received “numerous requests” from “domestic industries” to keep the duties intact, according to an agency notice late Sept. 2.
An economist and a former assistant U.S. trade representative for trade policy and economics agreed that rolling back the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports would be modestly helpful to fight inflation, but that it wouldn't be noticeable to many consumers. Ed Gresser, the former assistant USTR now at the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, said that he thinks the administration's talk that the best way to refine the Trump-era tariffs is to roll back those on consumer goods is misguided. "The effect there has been to shift a lot of purchasing to Vietnam, a little bit to Mexico and a little bit to India," he said, so he doesn't think inflation would change much if those tariffs are dialed back. He said the more inflationary part of the tariffs is the 25% tariffs on industrial inputs.
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 following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 15-21 and 22-28:
Large U.S. multinationals are more pessimistic about doing business in China than they have ever been, but it's not because they have come to expect the Section 301 tariffs will never go away. Rather, the annual U.S.-China Business Council membership survey found that lockdowns to control COVID-19 are the top problem for companies doing business in China, with 96% of respondents saying the lockdowns hurt their firms, and 48% saying that there was a severe negative impact.
Some companies said in recently submitted comments they used to benefit from Section 232 tariffs but no longer do. Others said they previously were able to mitigate the cost impact of Section 301 tariffs through exclusions, finding other suppliers or other trade benefits but can't anymore.