The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) previously announced a process to obtain product exclusions from the additional tariffs in effect on certain products imported from China under the U.S. response to China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of U.S. technology and intellectual property. The 301 lists of products subject to tariffs was determined by a 90-day process that included public hearings and a notice and comment period. You can also find an unofficial spreadsheet with the final 301 lists here.

The USTR also provided an opportunity for the public to request the exclusion of a particular product from the additional duties in order to address situations that warranted excluding a particular product within a subheading, but not the tariff subheading as a whole.

All posted exclusion requests can be found on: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USTR-2018-0025.

The USTR recently announced that it is still in the process of posting exclusion requests due to the high volume of submissions, and therefore there is currently a lag between the filing of an exclusion request and the posting of an exclusion request when public and confidential versions are been filed. The date of posting is the triggering date for initial comments regarding an exclusion requests.  Permissible comments include letters of support as well as opposition.  After the comment period is closed, an additional deadline will be established for rebuttal comments.

As of the date of this report, 815 exclusion requests have been denied.

None have been granted.

We hope you find this report helpful and please contact us if you have any questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Webinar – November 8, 2018

Starts: 1:00 PM (EDT)
Ends: 2:00 PM (EDT)

3D printing is a leading technology that transforms how and where goods are designed, made (printed), distributed, and sold.  Government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, have engaged in initiatives to promote innovation related to 3D printing.  As companies gain efficiencies through transitioning to 3D printing, and government encourages its use, government contractors should be alert to the myriad of compliance considerations involved in selling 3D printed parts pursuant to public contracts.

Join the Crowell & Moring team on Thursday, November 8th at 1:00 pm EDT to discuss strategies for transitioning the manufacture of goods for sale to the government to an additive, 3D printing process.  Our team of experienced practitioners and consultants will walk through a range of compliance considerations – from supplier and material approval requirements to inspection and cybersecurity considerations – to arm you with the knowledge you need to implement this forward-looking technology while maintaining compliance with rigorous government regulations.

We hope you will join us for the free webinar.

Speakers

  • Gail Zirkelbach, Partner
  • Mana Lombardo, Counsel
  • Michael Gruden, Associate

 

Contact: Kim Peters (202.508.8991, kpeters@crowell.com)
Register

Last updated on 12/4/2018: Changed date of when U.S. Section 301 List 3 tariffs change from 10 to 25 percent (now TBD).

Unofficial spreadsheet with Final 301 list, partial list, and HTS’ removed added.

U.S. Trade Actions

Action Covered Products Rate Increase Effective Date
Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Steel – 25%
Aluminum – 10%		 6/1/2018
Status: Steel – all countries of origin except South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina (agreed to quotas); and Australia (exempted).

Aluminum – all countries of origin except Argentina (agreed to quota); and Australia (exempted).

Beginning August 13, steel articles covered by Section 232 from Turkey are subject to an ad valorem duty rate of 50%.

On October 24, South Africa was granted exemptions on 161 aluminum and 36 steel products by the Commerce Department.
Section 232 Autos and Automotive Parts TBD TBD
Status: For the latest status, please click here.
Section 301 For the final list of products in List 1, please click here.

For the final list of products in List 2, please click here.

For the final list of products in List 3, please click here.

 25%

 

25%

 

10%

25%

 7/6/2018

 

8/23/2018

 

9/24/2018

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 was originally composed of 284 proposed tariff lines identified by the interagency Section 301 Committee. 279 of the 284 lines went into effect on 8/23/2018.

For full details on List 2, please click here.

List 3 totaling approximately $200 billion of imports was originally composed of 6,031 tariff lines. 5,745 full and partial lines go into effect on 9/24/2018.

For full details on List 3, please click here.

Unofficial searchable and filterable spreadsheet with Current U.S. Section 301 Tariff Lists (Updated for Final List 3)

Retaliatory Actions

 

Canada For covered products, please click here. Table 1 – 25%
Table 2 – 10%
Table 3 – 10%		 7/1/2018
Status: The Canadian government received over 1,000 submissions of public feedback during public consultations on its original list.

Canada is imposing countermeasures against C$16.6 billion in imports of steel, aluminum, and other products from the U.S., representing the value of 2017 Canadian exports affected by the U.S. tariffs.
EU For covered products, please click here. Annex I – 10% or 25%
Annex II – 10% – 50%		 Annex I – 6/22/2018
Annex II – 3/23/2021 or 5th day after WTO Dispute Settlement Body rules against the U.S. action, whichever is first.
Status: For the latest status, please click here.
Mexico For the translated list of covered products, please click here. 7% – 25% (pages 1-4)

 

10% – 15% (page 5)

 6/5/2018

7/5/2018
Status: Most retaliatory measures effective as of 6/5/2018. An “exception” list is effective on 7/5/2018.
China (Response to Section 232 Tariffs) For covered products, please click here. Annex I – 15% – 25% 4/3/2018
Status: See above.
China (Response to Section 301 Tariffs) For covered products in List 1, please click here.

(Unofficial Version)

 25% 7/6/2018
For covered products in List 2, please click here.(Unofficial Version) 25% 8/23/2018
For covered products in List 3 (announced August 3), please click here.(Unofficial Version) Annex 1 and 2 – now 10%

Annex 3 – now 5%

Annex 4 – remains 5%

(Originally 1-3 were 25, 20, and 10 percent, respectively)

 9/24/2018
Status: List 1 is composed of 545 tariff lines, and goes into effect on 7/6/2018.

List 2 contains 333 tariff lines on U.S. goods worth $16 billion. Start date is 8/23/2018.

List 3 contains 5,207 tariff lines on U.S. worth $60 billion. Start date is 9/24/2018.
India For covered products, please click here. Up to $10.6 billion;
Annex I – 5% – 100%		 12/17/2018
Status: The U.S. declined India’s request for WTO consultations.
Japan For covered products, please click here. Up to $1.91 billion TBD – no earlier than March 23, 2021, or the 5th day following the date of a decision from the WTO DSB, whichever comes first.
Status: No update since May 18, 2018. Ambassador Lighthizer is holding trade talks with Economy Minister Motegi in July. Under Secretary McKinney is also leading a trade mission to Japan to discuss a possible bilateral trade deal.
Russia For covered products, please click here. Additional Tariffs of 25, 30, 35, or 40% 8/6/2018
Status: On August 6, 2018, Russia began imposing additional tariffs on selected U.S. products.
Turkey For covered products, please click here. Up to $1.78 billion;
Annex I – 5% – 40%

Increased certain duties by 4 to 140%

  

6/21/2018

8/15/2018

 
Status:

Continue Reading Latest U.S. Trade Actions/Tariffs and Other Countries Retaliatory Measures – Updated December 4, 2018

 

Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce that Mariana Pendás, in the firm’s International Trade Group, has been recognized by Latinvex as one of Latin America’s “Rising Legal Stars.” The list honors 50 lawyers from 38 international law firms doing business in Latin America. Selections were made based on scope and prominence of work and future potential.

Pendás, a dual-qualified lawyer in Spain and New York, and admitted to practice in Brussels under the E-list, focuses her practice on compliance with U.S. and EU economic sanctions, anti-money laundering laws and regulations, export controls, anti-corruption/anti-bribery laws and regulations, international arbitration, and dispute resolution. Latinvex highlighted her experience assisting U.S. clients on U.S. sanctions relating to different programs such as U.S. Venezuela-related sanctions and counter narcotics trafficking sanctions.

About Crowell & Moring’s Latin American Practice

Crowell & Moring represents clients in Latin America and the Caribbean on issues including international arbitration, corporate, finance, international trade, and policy issues. The firm regularly advises clients on issues under international and regional trade conventions, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America-Dominican Republic-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), as well as bilateral free trade agreements between the United States and Colombia, Panama, and other countries. The firm also advises on anti-money laundering and sanctions issues across Latin America.

Latinvex publishes daily news and weekly analysis on Latin America business; its coverage extends to the region’s legal sector, including rankings of law firms and individual lawyers. (No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Bars of, or any courts in, the jurisdictions in which the lawyers are admitted to practice).

 

Washington – Crowell & Moring International (CMI) LLC is pleased to announce that Himamauli “Him” Das, former Senior Director for International Trade and Investment at the National Security Council and National Economic Council, as well as the former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Trade and Investment at the Treasury Department, has affiliated with the firm as Senior Advisor. With nearly two decades of experience across the White House, the State Department, and the Treasury Department, he will serve as a consultant on trade, investment, and market access issues.

“Him brings substantial government and international experience across the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations working with the international institutions where CMI operates,” said Robert Holleyman, CMI’s president and CEO.

Das was responsible for coordinating White House policy on trade negotiations – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – and trade enforcement.  He was also responsible for trade and investment matters in international fora, including the G7, the G20, OECD, the UN, APEC, and ASEAN. At the Treasury Department, Das led negotiations related to financial services and exchange rate matters, developed rules governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and played a leadership role on international financial regulatory standards and on bilateral investment treaties.

“Him has been involved with CFIUS matters at all levels of government since 2006, reviewing hundreds of transactions in that time. He understands the rapidly evolving investment and national security landscape,” Holleyman said. “With passage of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) and new investment standards being considered globally, Him’s counsel will be particularly timely.”

Das said, “I am excited to work together with CMI to support and expand its longstanding capabilities in the areas of trade, investment and multilateral institutions. I am also enthusiastic about advancing the digital transformation initiative at CMI having long been engaged in international efforts focused on cross-border data transfers, fintech, regtech and emerging payment models.

In addition to consulting for CMI, Das serves as Chief Legal Officer and Senior Vice President of the Financial Integrity Network (FIN), a Washington-based advisory firm that provides services to governments, financial services firms, and other organizations to strengthen global financial integrity.

Das earned his J.D., Order of the Coif, M.P.P., and B.A., high distinction, from the University of California, Berkeley, and his M.Sc. from the University of Colorado

 

On October 23, 2018, the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice seeking comments on imposing export control restrictions on electronic waste in response to concerns that unregulated recycling of electronic waste is a source of counterfeit goods. BIS has proposed to define electronic waste, prohibit electronic waste export, establish electronic waste exemptions, and require an export license to ship exempted electronic waste abroad. The Bureau is seeking public comment until December 24, 2018 on all aspects of the proposal including the definition, methods of tracking exported electronic waste, costs, and the likely effectiveness of the regulations.

October 25, 2018 • Brussels, Belgium

Starts: 2:30 PM
Ends: 3:50 PM

Location: Radisson Red Hotel, Rue d´Idalie, 35, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

Register

The free flow of data across borders is critical for trade, economic growth and social progress. Governments in APEC and ASEAN have made great strides in creating privacy frameworks which encourage convergence across the region, enabling data to flow while maintaining a similar level of protection for citizens. Yet gaps remain. More needs to be done at both the regional and national levels to support greater alignment of these frameworks, and to work with other regions – including the EU – to facilitate interoperability. With data increasingly fueling growth and innovation in today’s digital economy, the time to get this right is now.

The International Conference of Data Protection & Privacy Commissioners (ICDPPC) is the annual, high-level gathering of international data protection authorities, public officials and private sector representatives that convenes to discuss the future of privacy regulation, data flows, and related issues brought about by technological innovation in the modern digital economy. Registration for the ICDPPC is not required to attend this event, and we invite data protection officers, policy and government affairs professionals, and others with a stake in the global privacy and data protection environment to join this discussion.

Privacy perspectives from the Asia-Pacific will include data protection authorities, industry innovators and trade associations. It will examine recent initiatives and emerging views from the region. The discussion will also delve into the latest efforts to enable seamless global data transfers, including trust marks, certification mechanisms and the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. Stakeholders will discuss best practices in this arena, the path forward for policy in the Asia-Pacific, and how APEC, ASEAN and EU officials can lead the way in facilitating global interoperability.

Speakers will include:

  • Ambassador Robert Holleyman, President & CEO, C&M International and former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
  • Boris Wojtan, Director of Privacy, GSMA
  • Hilary Wandall, GC and Chief Data Governance Officer, TrustArc
  • Huey Tan, President, AsiaDPO
  • Representatives from the Personal Information Protection Commission (PPC) of Japan and the Japan Institute for Promotion of Digital Economy and Community (JIPDEC)

Contact: Clark Jennings (202.624.2652 , cjennings@crowell.com)

The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced this week that it will post test versions of its new Registration and Advisory Opinion (AO) applications on the cloud-based Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS) for industry testing and feedback starting October 16th through mid-November 2018.

If a company is interested in participating in this testing, DDTC asks to please contact the DDTC Test Support Team at the number or email below to sign up and receive further guidance.

Each individual tester will be required to sign a DECCS UAT Terms of Use document to ensure users understand the testing process and guidelines.

DDTC is encouraging companies to begin the testing process as early in the test period as possible. Additional applications will be available for testing in the coming weeks and will require a test account and a complete test registration in order to access them.

DDTC Test Support Team:

Email: PM-DDTC-DECCS@state.gov

Phone: (202) 663-1282 / (202) 663-2838

The DDTC Test Support Team will be available during the week from 10am to 4pm EST

On October 3, 2018, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, “the Agencies”) issued a statement addressing instances in which banks can collaborate with each other and share resources to manage their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) obligations more efficiently and effectively. This may involve pooling human, technology, or other resources to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and leverage specialized expertise. The statement indicates that such collaborative arrangements are generally are most suitable for community banks with simple operations and lower risk for money laundering and terrorist financing. The statement does not apply to collaborative arrangements for the purpose of sharing information under Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The statement provides several non-exhaustive examples of how banks may collaborate:

Internal Controls

Two or more banks may share resources to conduct internal control functions such as: (1) reviewing, updating, and drafting BSA/AML policies and procedures; (2) reviewing and developing risk-based customer identification and account monitoring processes; and (3) tailoring monitoring systems and reports for the risks posed.

Independent Testing

Personnel at one bank may be used to conduct the BSA/AML independent test at another bank within a collaborative arrangement.

BSA/AML Training

A collaborative arrangement may allow for the hiring of a qualified instructor to conduct the BSA/AML training across multiple banks.

In certain instances it may not be appropriate to share resources under a collaborative arrangement. For instance, it may not be appropriate for banks to share a BSA officer due to the confidential nature of SARs filed and the potential impact on the ability of the BSA officer to effectively manage each bank’s daily BSA/AML compliance.  Further, banks should be careful when considering entering into arrangements due to potential privacy concerns, regulatory requirements specific to third parties, oversight issues, and more. Any arrangement should be documented with a contract and evaluated on a periodic basis. It is also important that banks tailor any agreements to meet their specific risk profile for money laundering and terrorist financing. Finally, each bank remains individually responsible for ensuring compliance with BSA requirements.

The statement appears to reflect an acknowledgement by regulators of the increasing amount of financial and human resources that banks are obligated to invest in AML compliance and the growing dichotomy in the ability of large versus smaller banks to maintain complex AML programs.

Practical Considerations

Banks considering such arrangements may wish to consider incorporating into these agreements other types of collaboration allowed by BSA rules. For example, although the statement does not govern sharing under Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, such arrangements could be combined with section 314(b) relationships where appropriate to help banks improve the quality of their SAR reporting. Likewise, banks have the option under BSA rules to enter into agreements to rely on other banks to perform customer identification and collect beneficial ownership information on shared customers, which could be combined with the new collaborative arrangements.

Of course, banks should be careful when entering into such arrangements to ensure regulatory and other concerns are met. Any collaborative arrangement should be fully documented, reviewed periodically, and commensurate with the banks’ risk profiles.

 

Finally, the statement encourages banks to engage with their primary federal regulators when first considering collaborative arrangements to ensure that regulators understand the nature and extent of the proposed collaboration and have an opportunity to provide feedback.

Join Us For A Complimentary Webinar – Thursday, October 25, 2018 – 12:00 – 1:00 PM ET

Two years into the Trump Administration and:

  • The Consumer Product Safety Commission now has a Republican majority,
  • the Department of Transportation has released its 3.0 guidance on autonomous vehicles,
  • NIST has published a 375-page recommendation on medical device security,
  • the FTC is holding a series of hearings on the transformative nature of the digital transformation on markets.

What does all this activity in the United States mean for companies following the rapidly evolving regulations globally related to the safety and security of products?

This webinar will describe the current landscape at the federal agencies setting policy for product safety and security. With all the recent talk of regulatory humility in the face of great technological change, we’ll discuss whether regulators practice what they preach and if recent actions encourage or stifle innovation. Our session will compare and contrast activities across the federal government relevant to consumer products broadly defined with a particular focus on product safety and security.

Presenters:

Cheryl Falvey, Partner, Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC
John Fuson, Partner, Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC
Peter Miller, Senior Counsel, Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC

 

Please click here to register for this webinar.