The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 6-12:
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.
How to manage China's market distortions is an ever-present question in the relationship between the U.S. and the EU and will need to be addressed eventually, the deputy director-general of BusinessEurope and the president of the China Center at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said during a Dec. 9 Chamber event. Luisa Santos, from BusinesEurope, said that she sees new ambitions in Europe to address the disruption caused by non-market economies, including an anti-coercion tool that was just announced. But, she said, there needs to be more work in coordinating with the U.S. and Japan on how to address subsidies, state-owned enterprises and forced technology transfer. "I think one of the most important things to agree on what we think is a distortive subsidy and then the best way to address it," she said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 29 - Dec. 5:
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., criticized business interests as more allied with Chinese interests than with American ones, and said that even as a Uyghur Forced Labor bill was expected to advance in the House, it wasn't much closer to becoming law.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Nov. 29 - Dec. 3 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The leader of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee focused on making it easier for domestic industry to win antidumping and countervailing duty cases and said that the de minimis statute needs to be altered, in a hearing designed to talk about how Chinese practices damage workers, businesses and the environment.
The Trump administration's tariffs caused "a lot of damage to American consumers and business" and "we are no better off" after the phase one deal with China, House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said during a Dec. 2 roundtable with reporters. While not arguing that the Section 301 tariffs should be rolled back, he did say there should be an effort to "take them one by one and make some adjustments." He said there could be some Section 301 tariffs that could be changed without it being "politically toxic."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce objects to legislation meant to update antidumping and countervailing duty laws, it said in a letter to leadership of House Ways and Means Committee and its Trade Subcommittee. Soon after the Chamber sent its letter, lawmakers introduced the House version of the Eliminating Global Market Distortions to Protect American Jobs Act, the legislation that the Chamber has concerns about. "The Chamber opposes this bill, which has not been subject to the scrutiny and deliberation required for a complex, far-reaching measure amending U.S. AD/CVD laws," the Chamber said. "This major overhaul of U.S. trade laws could add to inflationary pressures by raising costs for a wide variety of goods, including many products sourced from U.S. allies and partners."
Maria Pagan, the nominee to lead the U.S. mission at the World Trade Organization, told Senate Finance Committee members that reforming the appellate body is a top priority because "Appellate Body overreaching has shielded China’s non-market practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and businesses." She said that appellate body rulings "undermined our ability to protect U.S. workers and businesses from those non-market practices."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 22-28: