Although the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sits dormant, U.S. industry should reignite efforts to convince the public that concluding the deal would pay dividends for both parties, Rock Creek Global Advisors Managing Director Michael Smart said during a Feb. 24 panel. “For all the discussion, one thing has not happened,” Smart said. “The administration certainly had in its ability to say, ‘We are calling off TTIP negotiations, or ending them.’ It hasn’t done that.” Panel participants agreed there is still at least a glimmer of hope for conclusion of the deal, but Smart said that U.S. industry must first find a rhythm in its advocacy for trade and other issues with the new Trump administration. While certain political liabilities come with taking a stance on hot-button issues, trade associations can help shield businesses from unwanted exposure, and industry has somewhat skirted the national trade debate in favor of pushing regulatory and tax reform, Smart said.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has extended from Feb. 22 to March 8 the deadline to submit post-hearing comments on whether it should reinstate tariffs on a number of imports from the EU in response to alleged discrimination against U.S. beef exports, USTR said (here). Members of the U.S. beef industry during a Feb. 15 hearing pleaded with the interagency Section 301 Committee to follow through with the December-proposed retaliatory tariffs in response to the alleged EU discrimination, but representatives of the motorcycle, rayon fiber and confectionery industries cautioned against the move (see 1702150046).
Members of the U.S. beef industry pleaded to the interagency Section 301 Committee on Feb. 15 to assess proposed retaliatory tariffs in response to its allegations of EU discrimination against U.S. beef exports, while representatives of the motorcycle, rayon fiber, and confectionery industries cautioned against the move. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in December issued a list of 85 headings and subheadings from the EU that the U.S. is considering for retaliatory tariffs, including food and a smattering of other products (see 1612270025).
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, plans to introduce a bill that would make all executive branch trade actions, including tariff raises, subject to congressional approval, as part of his call for Congress to reclaim constitutional powers to lead U.S. trade policy, he wrote in an opinion column for Forbes (here). The yet-to-be-introduced Global Trade Accountability Act would help ensure that Congress would be involved in any decision that would increase trade barriers, Lee said. One example of a statute giving the executive branch “far too much power” to raise tariffs is Trade Act of 1974 Section 122, which allows the president to impose temporary import “surcharges” of up to 15 percent on any goods to deal with “large and serious” U.S. balance-of-payment deficits, Lee said.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is issuing a list of 85 headings and subheadings that could be subject to retaliatory tariffs being considered against the EU, as industry representatives have claimed that the EU is discriminating against U.S. beef exports, USTR said (here). The Obama administration is considering the tariffs (see 1612220023) after members of the U.S. beef industry filed a petition to USTR for their reinstatement, the agency said.
The U.S. is considering reinstatement of tariffs on certain imports from the EU, in connection with alleged EU discrimination against U.S. beef exports, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement (here). An agreement signed by the EU and U.S. in 2009 to allow EU imports of non-hormone-treated U.S. beef “has not worked as intended,” USTR said in its statement (see 09050705). The agreement was renewed in 2013, and expired Aug. 2, 2015 (see 13102316). Before any trade action, USTR will examine the anticipated effectiveness of imposing tariffs and other possible actions, including against non-beef EU products, as well as the effects on the U.S. economy and consumers, USTR said (here).
President-elect Donald Trump's hard-line trade stance expressed throughout his campaign is seen by some as more of a negotiating tactic than a clear indicator of likely policy changes. While scholars still wonder how Trump would react if such talks don’t meet his goals, there's much debate as to what authority the president has to enact many of the Trump campaign promises. Among other things, Trump has said the U.S. should renegotiate NAFTA (see 1611100040), collect up to 45 percent tariffs to counter alleged Chinese currency manipulation (see 1601150029), and raise tariffs on companies that move operations overseas, withdrawing from the World Trade Organization if it disapproves of that policy (see 1607260043). Withdrawing from the WTO seems the least likely of those proposals, but a greater effort to engage China from a Trump administration is especially likely, observers said.
The U.S. International Trade Commission released its annual report on the previous year's trade-related activities, it said in a press release (here). The report (here) includes an overview of antidumping and countervailing duty, safeguard, intellectual property rights, and section 301 cases undertaken by the U.S. government in 2014. In addition, the report covers:
The U.S. International Trade Commission released its annual report on the previous year's trade-related activities, it said in a press release (here). "The Year in Trade 2013” includes an overview of antidumping and countervailing duty, safeguard, intellectual property rights, and section 301 cases undertaken by the U.S. government in 2013. In addition, the report covers:
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) determined Ukraine is a significant violator of intellectual property rights (IPR) protections in a Section 301 review, but will disregard the infringement at this time in light of the ongoing political transition in the country, said USTR. Under Section 301, USTR can retaliate against countries it classifies as IPR violators. In May 2013, USTR determined the Ukrainian government used infringing software and the country hosted infringement of copyright and related rights.