While the treasury secretary has said before that some of the tariffs on Chinese goods hurt America more than they hurt China (see 2107190046), and the U.S. trade representative has defended them, the White House has now said that the administration's review of its China trade policy is taking inflation into account.
Section 301 Tariffs
Section 301 Tariffs are levied under the Trade Act of 1974 which grants the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) authority to investigate and take action to protect U.S. rights from trade agreements and respond to foreign trade practices. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides statutory means allowing the United States to impose sanctions on foreign countries violating U.S. trade agreements or engaging in acts that are “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” and burdensome to U.S. commerce. Prior to 1995, the U.S. frequently used Section 301 to eliminate trade barriers and pressure other countries to open markets to U.S. goods.
The founding of the World Trade Organization in 1995 created an enforceable dispute settlement mechanism, reducing U.S. use of Section 301. The Trump Administration began using Section 301 in 2018 to unilaterally enforce tariffs on countries and industries it deemed unfair to U.S. industries. The Trump Administration adopted the policy shift to close what it deemed a persistent "trade gap" between the U.S. and foreign governments that it said disadvantaged U.S. firms. Additionally, it pointed to alleged weaknesses in the WTO trade dispute settlement process to justify many of its tariff actions—particularly against China. The administration also cited failures in previous trade agreements to enhance foreign market access for U.S. firms and workers.
The Trump Administration launched a Section 301 investigation into Chinese trade policies in August 2017. Following the investigation, President Trump ordered the USTR to take five tariff actions between 2018 and 2019. Almost three quarters of U.S. imports from China were subject to Section 301 tariffs, which ranged from 15% to 25%. The U.S. and China engaged in negotiations resulting in the “U.S.-China Phase One Trade Agreement”, signed in January 2020.
The Biden Administration took steps in 2021 to eliminate foreign policies subject to Section 301 investigations. The administration has extended and reinstated many of the tariffs enacted during the Trump administration but is conducting a review of all Section 301 actions against China.
With negotiations expected to begin in earnest soon on the House and Senate's trade packages, staffers in both chambers of Congress say there could be support for antidumping and countervailing duty reform and language around Section 301 tariff exclusions, but the likelihood of a dramatic de minimis change seems somewhat remote.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 11-17:
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.
Coalition for a Prosperous America trade counsel Charles Benoit slammed Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, calling him "chief betrayer" for the trade title he was integral in shaping in the Senate China package, known as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act or USICA. In an April 14 blog post, Benoit said that Crapo, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is "laser focused on making imports as cheap and easy as possible." Benoit said that "USICA’s trade title is cancerous to its core -- akin to committing economic treason against American workers and industry." He said the Section 301 exclusion process requirements are the worst, but he also criticized the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill renewal, which would continue the ability of finished goods to qualify for unilateral tariff reduction or elimination. "If Republicans don’t abandon his betrayal of our nation, the GOP will spend another decade tarnished as the party of globalization, big tech, and the hollowing out of our country," Benoit wrote. Crapo's office declined to comment.
Direct negotiations with China are, “at this point, unlikely to yield meaningful results” in curbing Beijing’s unfair trade practices, Emily Kilcrease, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in written testimony at a hearing April 14. “China has little incentive to commit to binding rules that will require structural changes to a system they believe works for their economic and political objectives,” she said.
A wide variety of trade groups told the Commerce Department that while they know the administration doesn't intend to tackle tariffs as part of its negotiations with Asian countries, they think offering to lower tariffs on U.S. goods would be the best way to get ambitious commitments in the region, and many said reconsidering the re-named Trans-Pacific Partnership is better than the conceived Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 4-10:
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 U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to argue against including rewrites to antidumping duty and countervailing duty laws, and calls for tariff relief, John Murphy, the lead advocate on trade for the group, blogged about their trade priorities.