The rollout of the new China trade policy looks a lot like the old China policy, with a new chance at Section 301 exclusions and all the tariffs remaining for now. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai suggested during the speech on the results of the China policy review that she doesn't have much hope for getting more structural reform that the phase one China agreement did not secure.
Customs duty
A customs duty is a tariff or tax which a country imposes on goods when they are transported across international borders. Customs Duties are used to protect countries' economies, residents, jobs, and environments, by limiting the flow of imported merchandise, especially restricted and prohibited goods, into the country. The Customs duty rate is a percentage determined by the value of the article purchased in the foreign country and not based on quality, size, or weight. U.S. customs duties are listed in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
Mexico will use the Electronic Certification System (eCERT) for transmitting certificates of eligibility for textile and apparel entries that are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under a tariff preference level, CBP said. The USMCA requires member countries to use "an electronic system for the transmission of a certificate of eligibility and other documentation related to TPLs for goods imported into the" U.S., CBP said. "Specified quantities of certain textile and apparel imports from Mexico that are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under a TPL must have a valid certificate of eligibility with a corresponding eCERT transmission in order for an importer to claim the preferential duty rate," it said. Upon entry, the goods "must match the eCERT transmission of a certificate of eligibility from Mexico in order for an importer to claim the preferential duty rate," it said. "The transition to eCERT will not change the TPL filing process or requirements. Under this process, importers will continue to provide the certificate of eligibility numbers from Mexico in the same manner as when currently filing entry summaries with CBP. The format of the numbers of certificates of eligibility will not change as a result of the transition to eCERT. CBP will reject entry summaries that claim a preferential duty rate under a TPL when filed without a valid certificate of eligibility in eCERT."
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Sept. 24. The following headquarters rulings were modified recently, according to CBP:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Sept. 20-24 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
American Apparel and Footwear Association CEO Steve Lamar told U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai that freight rates and delays are a crisis, and wrote, "We implore you ... to provide the kind of immediate and short-term relief that companies need today to survive this existential threat. We urge you to retroactively reinstate the expired Section 301 tariff exclusions. Further, we urge you to suspend the application of all Section 301 tariffs going forward. Combined, these actions would immediately make millions of dollars available to companies that are hardest hit by the shipping crisis."
More than 190 solar companies sent a letter Sept. 22 to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo urging the rejection of requests to begin anti-circumvention inquiries on solar cells and panels from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. “Steep duties proposed by an anonymous group of petitioners would devastate thousands of U.S. solar companies and cause the industry to miss out on 18 gigawatts (GW) of solar deployment by 2023,” the Solar Energy Industries Association said in a press release.
Sept. 10 is the one-year anniversary of the first-filed Section 301 complaint alleging the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act and violate the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act. Virtually all the roughly 3,800 cases from 6,500 or more importers that have since inundated the Court of International Trade seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded with interest. A court order Sept. 8 vacated components of its July 6 preliminary injunction order instructed the government to liquidate customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, once the litigation becomes “final and conclusive” (see 2107060077). The order also frees the litigation to return to arguments on the merits after a prolonged battle over many months over refund relief. Oct. 1 is the deadline for Department of Justice to file papers supporting its June 1 dispositive motion and response to the plaintiffs’ Aug. 2 cross-motion. Nov. 15, the last date listed on the court’s April 13 briefing schedule, is when the plaintiffs file their reply.
The American Association of Exporters and Importers, IBM and U.S. subsidiaries of the Foxconn Technology Group all disagree with CBP's proposed use of Part 102 rules of origin in non-preferential claims and procurement under USMCA (see 2107010045), they said in the comments recently posted in the docket for the proposal. Meanwhile, lithium-ion battery producer, Inventus Power, and the American Iron and Steel Institute voiced support for the changes in their comments. So far, the comments show a deep split between industries in support (see 2107270049) and against (see 2109010006) the proposal.
The Foreign Agricultural Service published a list of updated quantity trigger levels and applicable periods for products that may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, saying the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund by way of an extension of liquidation or a protest.