This Tuesday, January 17, marked the close for the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) comment period for its statutory 4-year review of tariffs imposed on Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. To-date, the Biden Administration has retained Section 301 tariffs on over $300 billion worth of imports from China, which were initially imposed in four different tranches (referenced as Lists 1, 2, 3 and 4A) starting in 2018 by the Trump Administration.  

As part of its mandatory 4-year review on whether the Section 301 tariffs imposed on China have been effective, USTR asked stakeholders their “views on the effectiveness of the actions in obtaining the elimination of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation.” As of the January 17 deadline, USTR’s questionnaire had received 1497 public comments.   

Many of the responses on the USTR comments portal argued for specific HTS lines to be removed from the duties. Key arguments for many stakeholders commenting for tariff removal are that Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods have harmed domestic manufacturing due to increased costs on critical inputs from China, disrupted global supply chains, contributed to rising inflation and unemployment levels, and have hurt U.S. workers and consumers across various critical industries, such as healthcare and communications. In addition, another key argument for removal of Section 301 tariffs is that “rather than counteract China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation, Section 301 tariffs led China to assess retaliatory tariffs on goods imported from the United States.”

In its response, the U.S.-China Business Council, a nonprofit organization whose stated goal is promoting trade between the U.S. and China, stated that Section 301 tariffs “have been generally ineffective in pressuring China to change its practices”, and have resulted in “an estimated peak loss of 245,000 jobs” in the U.S. In addition, many of the responses supporting removal of the duties stated that “rather than counteract China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation, Section 301 tariffs led China to assess retaliatory tariffs on goods imported from the U.S.,” thus being counterintuitive to the Biden administration’s goals. Later this year, USTR may decide to remove tariffs on certain imports by HTS lines based on comments submitted as part of this four-year review process.   

Other stakeholders have called for the tariffs to remain in place after July 2022, four  years after they were initially imposed by USTR under the Trump Administration. They range from leading domestic manufacturers to small private businesses across various industries.

Crowell & Moring, LLP will continue to monitor developments and the potential impact to businesses and consumers moving forward.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
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.

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 Dmitry Bergoltsev Dmitry Bergoltsev

Dmitry Bergoltsev is a senior international trade analyst in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He provides practice support to the International Trade Group on import regulatory matters pending before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border

Dmitry Bergoltsev is a senior international trade analyst in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He provides practice support to the International Trade Group on import regulatory matters pending before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). He works closely with attorneys developing courses of action for clients impacted by investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He also supports unfair trade investigations, including antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations, sunset reviews, and changed circumstance reviews before the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission (ITC).