The coming decrease to Section 301 tariffs on goods from China classified in subheading 9903.88.15 will apply to merchandise admitted to a foreign-trade zone depending on “the rate of duty and tax in force on the date of filing the application for privileged foreign status,” CBP said in a CSMS message. The tariffs on goods on the Section 301 4A list will fall from 15 percent to 7.5 percent on Feb. 14 (see 2001160019). Despite an industry request for blanket authority to allow for immediate delivery procedures (see 2001290037), CBP said that “immediate delivery procedures are not applicable.”
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.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is requesting comments on whether the third set of tariff exclusions on Chinese imports on Section 301 List 1, set to expire April 18, should last another year, it said in a notice. The agency will start accepting comments on the extensions on Feb. 16. The comments are due by March 16, it said. The USTR has granted extensions to only six exclusions so far (see 1912190060).
Indonesia has given its customs officials the authority to stop counterfeit goods at the border, and just in 2020, has already seized $1 billion rupiah, or $73,000, worth of counterfeits that were set for export, according to Iwan Freddy Hari Susanto, charge d'affaires for the Indonesian Embassy. He was testifying Jan. 31 at a hearing on Indonesia's eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program, and was describing numerous actions the country has taken to improve protections for intellectual property rights holders.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a new set of product exclusions from the 25 percent Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. The exclusions cover products from the third list of Section 301 goods. The new exclusions are reflected "in 2 10-digit HTSUS subheadings, which cover 52 requests, and 117 specially prepared product descriptions, which cover 156 separate exclusion requests," according to the notice.
Plug-in devices that connect to Wi-Fi and allow for users to operate other devices by controlling whether electrical current flows from the wall outlet differ from wearable smart devices for classification purposes, CBP said in a Jan. 21 ruling. Lawyers from Sharretts Paley requested the ruling on behalf of SDI Technologies. SDI argued that the “SmartPlugs” deserve a similar classification as Fitbit fitness trackers that connect to mobile phones through Bluetooth (see 1707190028).
CBP remains cautious in moving toward continuing education requirements for customs brokers as it continues to examine the issues that derailed a similar effort some years ago, said Brenda Smith, executive assistant commissioner of CBP’s Office of Trade, during a Jan. 29 interview with International Trade Today. CBP recently launched a task force on the subject (see 1910160056), but the agency is considering whether an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is necessary before issuing an actual proposal, she said.
Eliminating Thailand's eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences program, because of a complaint from pork producers, would hurt U.S. importers more than Thai businesses, one witness said, and would be unlikely to convince the country to allow pigs fed with ractopamine to be imported. China and the European Union also ban meat that was fed the growth-enhancing drug. Dan Anthony, testifying on behalf of the GSP Action Committee, told the panel of government officials that they should put great weight on the potential harm to U.S. importers as they make their decision. He gave the example of a 25-person company that imports from Thailand, and had to pay $60,000 to $70,000 a month in tariffs during the two years GSP was not in force. Once it was renewed, the North Carolina company hired 17 full-time employees, and today, employs 70 people.
The following is a selection of articles that appeared in International Trade Today in 2019 covering ruling letters. CBP frequently publishes rulings months after they are issued, so these articles are included based on the dates the articles were published, rather than the date the ruling letter was issued.
CBP published several thousand prospective rulings in 2019 on its Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) database. The agency issues its rulings from either the National Commodity Specialist Division in New York, which handles issues like classification, country of origin, marking and preferential treatment, or the Office of Regulations and Rulings at CBP headquarters in Washington, D.C., which may also decide other issues, such as valuation, drawback, exclusion order enforcement and liquidation.
CBP published notices in the Customs Bulletin revoking or modifying numerous rulings in 2019. These ruling revocations and modifications also apply to “any treatment previously accorded by CBP to substantially identical transactions.” When revoking or modifying a ruling, CBP is required by 19 USC 1625(c) to publish notice of the proposed action, and allow a period—generally one month—for comment before finalizing the action. An importer’s failure to advise CBP of “substantially identical transactions” or of a ruling not identified by CBP in these notices “may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations of merchandise subsequent to the effective date of this notice.” Rulings CBP revoked or modified in 2019 are as follows: