On July 24-25, 2018, the Office of the United State Trade Representative (USTR) held public hearings regarding proposed tariffs on approximately $16 billion of Chinese products.

Rebuttal comments are due on Tuesday, July 31, 2018.

The list identifying these products (also known as “List 2”) was released last month and represents 284 new tariff lines identified by the interagency Section 301 Committee as “benefiting from Chinese industrial policies, including the “Made in China 2025” industrial policy.”

Section 301 For covered products in List 1, please click here. 25% 7/6/2018
For covered products in List 2, please click here. TBD TBD
For covered products in List 3, please click here and see Annex 10% TBD
Status: List 1 totaling $34 billion worth of imports is composed of 818 tariff lines, and went into effect on 7/6/2018.

List 2 totaling $16 billion worth of imports is composed of 284 proposed tariff lines identified by the interagency Section 301 Committee. This was the subject of the hearings.

List 3 includes a list of tariff lines of products from China with an annual trade value totaling approximately $200 billion. These are also subject to a public review process.

The Committee heard testimony from over 80 witnesses on whether to include certain tariff lines in List 2. The witnesses represented trade organization and corporations of all sizes. The USTR intends to publish a transcript of the hearing, but did not provide a date.

Most of the witnesses requested that the Committee remove specific tariff lines from the list. The most common justifications were as follows:

  • The United States has a trade surplus in a particular good, and the 301 duties would harm that industry;
  • The increased duties would:
    • lead directly to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs;
    • lead directly to an increase in the price of goods to the U.S. consumer; and
    • would have no effect on China’s intellectual property practices;
  • The goods targeted on List 2:
    • are only available from China; and
    • are not relevant to the “Made in China 2025” program.

Witnesses who supported the Section 301 duties asserted that they were necessary to protect U.S. manufacturing concerns and that sufficient capacity existed in the United States to manufacture the listed products.

The Committee asked questions of the witnesses when their testimony was complete. The questions fell into several broad categories:

  • Would the Section 301 duties affect the cost and availability of medical devices?
  • Why isn’t current U.S. manufacturing capacity available to meet U.S. demand?
  • Are the listed goods available from non-Chinese foreign suppliers?
  • How long would it take to increase production in the U.S., or to requalify a new non-Chinese supplier?

 

When preparing rebuttal comments, the Committee’s questions to the witnesses should be considered.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of John Brew John Brew

John Brew is the co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s International Trade Group and a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He has extensive experience in import and export trade regulation, and he regularly advises corporations, trade associations, foreign governments, and non-governmental organizations…

John Brew is the co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s International Trade Group and a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He has extensive experience in import and export trade regulation, and he regularly advises corporations, trade associations, foreign governments, and non-governmental organizations on matters involving customs administration, enforcement, compliance, litigation, legislation and policy.

John represents clients in proceedings at the administrative and judicial levels, as well as before Congress and the international bureaucracies that handle customs and trade matters. He advises clients on all substantive import regulatory issues handled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, such as classification, valuation, origin, marking, tariff preference programs, other agency regulations, admissibility, import restrictions, quotas, drawback, audits, prior disclosures, penalties, investigations, Importer Self Assessment and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs, importations under bond, the Jones Act, vessel repairs, and foreign trade zone matters.

Photo of Edward Goetz Edward Goetz

Edward Goetz is the manager for International Trade Services in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Edward leads the firm’s international trade analysts providing practice support to the International Trade Group in the areas of customs regulations, trade remedies, trade policy, export control…

Edward Goetz is the manager for International Trade Services in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Edward leads the firm’s international trade analysts providing practice support to the International Trade Group in the areas of customs regulations, trade remedies, trade policy, export control, economic sanctions, anti-money laundering (AML), anti-corruption/anti-bribery, and antiboycott. He has extensive government experience providing information and interpretive guidance on the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) concerning the export of defense articles, defense services, and related technical data. He also assists attorneys with matters involving the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), economic sanctions, AML, anti-corruption/anti-bribery, and trade remedies.