New Articles

COVID-19 and the Future of Actions Against Unfairly Traded Imports

imports

COVID-19 and the Future of Actions Against Unfairly Traded Imports

The first half of 2020 has presented unanticipated and unique challenges to businesses, both in the United States and worldwide, due to public health-related restrictions on customers and the consequent economic effects. The challenges are likely to continue throughout 2020 and well into 2021. In a world trading system where supply chains often have been disrupted and competition for U.S. companies from foreign suppliers changes frequently, clients report that top management teams are seeking ways to address these challenges both through business actions and, when necessary, through legal action.

Foreign producers are facing many of the same challenges that U.S. companies are. As demand in their home markets decline, these foreign companies often look to the United States, a relatively open market, as a place to sell their goods. Sometimes these sales are at prices that under the law are considered unfairly low. Manufacturers at times even make loss-making transactions in order to cover their variable costs and make some contribution to fixed costs, in an effort to keep their businesses afloat. At other times, foreign government subsidies prop up foreign companies and allow them to sell products in the U.S. market. For U.S. companies faced with this kind of business challenge from overseas competition, there are legal means to help address the problem.

The nature of the cases

In the last few months, we have seen an uptick in cases filed with U.S. government agencies under the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) laws. The relief that can be granted from success in these cases are additional duties, and duties in the range of 25-35 percent are not at all unusual. AD and CVD cases may be filed separately or simultaneously.

The legal basis for AD cases is that a foreign product is being sold at unfairly low prices in the U.S. and that imports of the product are injuring the U.S. industry producing that product. The test for unfairly low pricing is complex, but the pricing of the foreign product need NOT be below cost, despite some news stories that misstate the standard. The legal basis for a CVD case is that foreign companies are being subsidized by foreign governments and the importation of such products into the U.S. are injuring the U.S. industry producing that product.

Market weakness likely explains rise in cases

The AD and CVD laws have been on the books for many years, and such cases tend to be filed more often in times of economic downturns and distress, when U.S. companies are feeling the injurious effects of the imports most acutely. Given the current economic turmoil—the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reported a 13 percent decrease in global gross domestic product during the first half of 2020—it is not surprising that the current economic environment has led several companies to consider this option.

______________________________________________________________

Jeffrey Neeley is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. He leads the firm’s International Trade Remedies team.

aluminum

U.S. Re-Imposes 10% Tariff on Specific Aluminum Imports from Canada

On August 6, 2020, the White House issued a proclamation stating that the U.S. would re-impose 10% tariffs on imports of non-alloyed unwrought aluminum under subheading 7601.10 from Canada starting August 16, 2020.  The subject products make up the majority of U.S. aluminum imports from Canada.

President Donald Trump explained that the re-imposition of tariffs was necessary in his view, stating that:

“Canada is the largest source of United States imports of non-alloyed unwrought aluminum, accounting for nearly two-thirds of total imports of these articles from all countries in 2019 and approximately 75 percent of total imports in the first five months of 2020. The surges in imports of these articles from Canada coincides with a decrease in imports of these articles from other countries and threatens to harm domestic aluminum production and capacity utilization.”

The proclamation went on to state that “the United States will monitor for import surges of articles that continue to be exempt from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, to ensure that exports of non-alloyed unwrought aluminum to the United States are not simply reoriented into increased exports of alloyed, further processed, or wrought aluminum articles,” the proclamation said, meaning that tariffs on additional aluminum articles could follow in the future. Additionally, under the previous agreement between the two countries, Canada is allowed to place retaliatory tariffs on U.S. aluminum products.

The White House has not stated whether or not it will reinstate the 25% tariffs on imports of steel.

__________________________________________________________

Nithya Nagarajan is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She practices in the International Trade & Supply Chain group of the firm’s Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation industry team.

Turner Kim is an Assistant Trade Analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington D.C. office.

Camron Greer is an Assistant Trade Analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington D.C. office.

france

USTR Announces Additional Duties on Cosmetics and Handbags from France, Delays Effective Date Until January 2021

On July 10, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that it would impose a 25 percent additional duty on certain cosmetics, soaps and cleansing products, and handbags that are products of France, valued at $1.3 billion, due to the French Digital Services Tax (DST). Nevertheless, USTR delayed the application of the duties for as long as 180 days, which means that at the earliest, the additional duties would go into effect January 6, 2020.  USTR stated that the tariffs could go into effect sooner than the 180-day suspension period, but if this change were to occur, USTR would issue a subsequent Federal Register Notice amending the effective date of implementation for the tariffs.

In July 2019, USTR opened an investigation directed at the Government of France under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, because of France’s new DST, which imposed a 3 percent revenue tax on companies providing certain online services directed at French customers. In December 2019, USTR found that the French DST was “unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdens U.S. commerce” and was expected to collect over $500 million in taxes for activities in 2021. USTR accepted comments from interested parties in early 2020 on a proposed list of goods targeted for additional tariffs, which included French cheeses, wines, cosmetics, and handbags. However, prior to the imposition of additional duties, the U.S. and French governments were able to negotiate a truce that temporarily delayed the implementation of the DST until December 2020 and obviated the need for USTR to take immediate action.

USTR has stated that this action concerning tariffs on certain French goods is not intended to escalate trade tensions with France but instead was necessitated by Section 304(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 requiring that USTR announce the action to be taken within 12 months of the initiation of the Section 301 investigation. The 180-day delay of the imposition of the tariffs is intended to provide USTR and France additional time to continue discussions, which could lead to a satisfactory resolution of the DST matter.

USTR has stated that it will continue to monitor the effect of the trade action and may modify the list of affected goods necessary to ensure resolution of the matter with the Government of France.

This action comes on the heels of USTR announcing a similar action into digital service taxes involving India, the European Union and several other countries. Over the last few years, various governments have enacted or considered taxes on revenues generated by digital services companies within the different jurisdictions. Proponents of DSTs argue that the tax corrects corporate taxation to cover previously untaxed or undertaxed revenues. Alternatively, the position of the Trump administration is that DSTs unfairly discriminate against “large, U.S.-based tech companies” such as Amazon and Google.

_______________________________________________________________

Robert Stang is a Washington, D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. He leads the firm’s Customs group.

Emily Lyons is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.