New Articles

C.H. Robinson: Millions at Stake for Shippers Awaiting Decision on China Tariff Refunds

tariff GSF shippers carbon

C.H. Robinson: Millions at Stake for Shippers Awaiting Decision on China Tariff Refunds

Businesses importing from China may get a second chance to take advantage of Section 301 tariff exclusions, which were designed to provide financial relief, adding up to thousands or even millions of dollars in savings for companies, on some products being imported to the U.S. from China. At the start of 2021, a majority of these tariff product exclusions expired, increasing duty fees for shippers, and adding strain in an elevated supply chain cost environment. Now, these tariff savings are back on the table for consideration.

USTR Comment Period is Open Until December 1

About one week remains to petition the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to reinstate 549 of these expired product exclusions, which would introduce retroactive refund potential for shippers. If the USTR rules to reinstate the refunds next month, shippers would be able to file for refunds as far back as October 15. In that two-month period alone, there is potential for millions of dollars in retroactive duty refunds, and that doesn’t include the future savings these exclusions could provide shippers who are likely not going to see supply chain congestion and shipping cost relief even as 2022 begins.

When considering whether to reinstate the exclusions, the USTR will focus primarily on factors such as changes in the global supply chain, domestic product availability and effort spent on domestic sourcing by importers, and whether there is adequate domestic capacity for producing the product in question in the U.S.

What This Means for Shippers

Not only does this targeted tariff exclusion process provide a financial opportunity for shippers now, but it also introduces the potential for additional exclusions to come to light in the future, according to recent statements by the USTR. However, many current trade measures are not expected to change soon. The office has acknowledged that trade reform between the U.S. and China is ongoing as the relationship evolves with the new administration.

Still, the potential for reinstated refunds next month presents an opportunity for shippers to better understand their financial position, discover what they may be able to reclaim, and determine what impact that may have on their shipping operations.

To help provide shippers with an information advantage, C.H. Robinson has developed an automated U.S. Tariff Search Tool. The tool streamlines what can otherwise be hours of tedious tariff data analysis. Shippers can input their organization’s HTS codes and receive information about their eligibility under the tariff exclusions as well as better understand their total landed cost analysis – including their costs to import, recovering duties previously paid, and reducing their duty exposure via trade agreements.

Shippers can submit comments to the USTR at this webpage: Home (ustr.gov) and get more information on the impact this could have on the trade community here: Recent Trade & Tariff Perspectives | C.H. Robinson (chrobinson.com).

biden

President Biden’s Targeted Exclusion Process

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is considering reinstating previously granted and extended exclusions on a case-by-case basis. Similar to the previous exclusion process, USTR has three considerations:

1. Whether the particular product remains available only from China

2. Whether reinstating the exclusion, or not reinstating the exclusion, will impact or result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests, including the impact on small businesses, employment, manufacturing output, and critical supply chains in the United States

3. The overall impact of the exclusions on the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s acts, policies and practices covered in the Section 301 investigation.

In accordance with a USTR statement made on October 5, 2021, companies may submit comments either in support or opposition of the restatement of a particular exclusion. A list of the over 500 exclusions covered by the notice is posted separately on the USTR website here. The reinstated exclusions will be retroactive to October 12, 2021. The commenting period opens on October 12, 2021 and closes December 1, 2021.


Biden Administration’s New Approach to the U.S.-China Trade Relationship

The reopening of the Section 301 tariff exclusion process is the first action in the Biden Administration’s New Approach to the U.S.-China Trade Relationship. Ambassador Katherine Tai, the USTR, outlined the Biden Administration’s New Approach in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on October 4, 2021. Ambassador Tai identified four items as the starting point of this new approach:

-Enforcement of the Phase One Agreement;

-A new targeted Section 301 tariff exclusion process;

-Addressing concerns with China’s state-centered and non-market trade practices; and

-Working with allies to shape the rules for fair trade in the 21st century.

Following up on the second item, USTR issued its request for comments on the reinstatement of certain Section 3011 exclusions on October 5, 2021. Baker Donelson’s trade professionals expect additional actions as a result of the Biden Administration’s new approach to China and will continue to keep clients informed.

Background on the Section 301 Tariffs

In August 2017, the Trump Administration initiated a Section 301 investigation into China’s unfair policies and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.2 In March 2018, USTR issued its Section 301 Report3 and determined that China’s actions related to intellectual property were unreasonable or discriminatory and burdened or restricted U.S. commerce. After unproductive engagement with China, USTR imposed tariffs on China’s imports as a response to China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property. USTR, however, established a process where companies could seek an exclusion from these tariffs and granted numerous exclusions for one year. USTR allowed companies to extend certain exclusions by written request. On December 31, 2020, all exclusions expired, except COVID pandemic-related exclusions.

____________________________________________________________

Lee Smith is an attorney and leader of Baker Donelson’s International Trade and National Security practice. He advises clients on matters involving export controls, customs compliance, trade remedy investigations, trade policy, market access, and free trade agreement interpretation. Smith can be reached at leesmith@bakerdonelson.com.

Robert J. Gardner is a public policy advisor in Baker Donelson’s Washington, D.C. office. He provides legislative and government relations guidance to clients on a variety of subjects, including tax, trade, appropriations, budget, infrastructure, and sanctions issues. Gardner may be reach at rgardner@bakerdonelson.com.

1 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411-2417; “Section 301” refers generally to Chapter 1 of Title III of the Trade Act of 1974.

2 Initiation of Section 301 Investigation; Hearing; and Request for Public Comments: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 82 Fed. Reg. 40, 213 (Aug. 24, 2017).

3 USTR, Findings Of The Investigation Into China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation Under Section 301 Of The Trade Act Of 1974 (Mar. 22, 2018) (Section 301 IP Report).

aircraft

US-EU Suspend Large Civil Aircraft Tariffs and Take Aim at China in Framework Addressing Non-Market Practices

The United States and European Union (“EU”) announced a “cooperative framework” to address and potentially resolve their long-running dispute over large civil aircraft subsidies, also commonly known as the BoeingAirbus or Large Civil Aircraft disputes. Originally initiated in 2004 when the U.S. filed a case at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) against the EU alleging illegal subsidies to Airbus SE, the Large Civil Aircraft dispute is the longest running dispute at the WTO. As part of the new understanding, the U.S. and EU will suspend their respective WTO-authorized tariff countermeasures, which affected a total value of $11.5 billion in trade. The U.S.-EU’s announcement is a major step towards potentially resolving the 17-year transatlantic dispute over aircraft subsidies.

As previously reported, the initial duties occurred in October 2019 when the U.S. imposed 15 percent tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on imports of civil aircraft and aircraft parts (under the HTSUS codes 8802.40.0013, 8802.40.0015, 8802.40.0017, 8802.40.0019, and 8802.40.0021). A rate of 25 percent was adopted by the U.S. for all other listed EU-origin imports, covering agricultural products, spirits, and luxury goods among other products. The EU retaliated in November 2020 with tariffs on approximately $4 billion worth of U.S. imports, with matching rates of 15 percent for civil aircraft and aircraft parts and 25 percent for all other U.S.-origin imports, covering agricultural products and industrial and finished goods.

As part of the Understanding on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircraft, the US and EU expressed their intention to:

-Establish a Working Group on Large Civil Aircraft led by each side’s respective Minister responsible for Trade, which will meet every 6 months or on request,

-Provide financing to large civil aircraft producers only on market terms,

-Provide R&D funding through an open and transparent process and make the results of fully government-funded R&D widely available, to the extent permitted by law,

-Not to provide R&D funding as well as specific support (such as specific tax breaks) to their own producers that would harm the other side,

-Collaborate on addressing non-market practices of third parties that may harm their respective large civil aircraft industries,

-Continue to suspend application of their countermeasures, for a period of 5 years, avoiding billions of euros in duties for importers on both sides of the Atlantic.

According to statements made by U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) Katherine Tai, the tariffs would remain suspended as long as the terms of the agreement are upheld and while they work on addressing issues including outstanding subsidies already paid.

The U.S.-EU cooperative framework also includes an “Annex on Cooperation on Non-Market Economies” to “more effectively address the challenge posed by non-market economies” in the civil aircraft sector. These cooperative steps include coordinating and exploring information-sharing regarding cybersecurity and other concerns, screening of inward and outward investments, and “joint analysis of non-market practices,” especially China’s, in the large civil aircraft sector. USTR Tai described the agreement as “a model we can build on for other challenges” related to “the threat from China’s non-market practices.”

_________________________________________________________________

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

USTR

USTR Considering New Tariffs on Various Goods From Six Countries

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced that it is accepting comments on whether to impose 25 percent tariffs on roughly $880 billion of goods imported from Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom in retaliation for digital services taxes (DST) imposed by those countries. The potential tariffs would be applied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Potential tariffs are aimed at products across various industries and include among others, leather articles, textile products, ceramic articles, stemware, glassware, glass fibers, copper alloys, printed circuit assemblies, and various instruments from Austria; seafood, rice, bamboo articles, corks, cigarette paper, wool yarn, bras, pearls, precious stones, precious metal articles, and furniture from India; seafood, perfumery, travel and leather goods, apparel, footwear, spectacle lenses, and optical elements from Italy; seafood, handbags, belts, footwear, hats, and glassware from Spain; textile floor coverings, bed linen, curtains, stone and ceramic articles, precious metal articles, and imitation jewelry from Turkey; and personal care and cosmetic products, apparel, footwear, ceramic articles, precious metal articles, imitation jewelry, refrigeration equipment, industrial robots, furniture, and games from the UK.

Complete country-specific lists of potentially affected products are included in the following notices: Austria/Deadline/Products, India/Deadline/Products, Italy/Deadline/Products, Spain/Deadline/Products, Turkey/Deadline/Products, and United Kingdom/Deadline/Products.

In January, USTR determined that each of the six countries’ digital services tax (DST) is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, i.e., meets the legal standard under Section 301. USTR found these countries’ DST to be actionable for the following reasons:

Austria – only applies to companies with at least €750 million in global revenue and €25 million in Austria-specific revenue derived from digital advertising revenue; India – only applies to “non-resident” companies; Italy – only applies to companies with at least €750 million in global revenue and €5.5 million in Italy-specific revenue derived from the provision of digital services; Spain – only applies to companies with at least €750 million in global revenue and €3.0 million in Spain-specific revenue derived from the provision of digital services; Turkey – only applies to companies with at least €750 million in global revenue and TRY 20 million in Turkey-specific revenue derived from the provision of digital services; and the United Kingdom – only applies to companies with at least £500 million in global revenue and  £25 million in U.K.-specific revenue derived from the provision of digital services.

The USTR’s latest action also terminates its prior investigations of Brazil, Czechia, Indonesia, and the European Union because USTR has determined that these jurisdictions have not adopted or implemented DST’s.

For copies of USTR’s determinations, which detail each country’s DST, please see the notices attached at the following:  Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

The deadlines for the submission of comments and requests to appear at the virtual hearings, as well as the list of U.S. imports on which the 25 tariffs would be imposed, vary by country. The multi-jurisdictional deadlines are as follows:

April 21, 2021: Request to appear at the hearing and summary of written testimony

April 30, 2021: Written comments

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions

May 10, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional written rebuttal comments.

The country-specific deadlines are set forth at the first set of hyperlinks.

katherine tai

Katherine Tai Confirmed as United States Trade Representative

On March 18, 2021, Katherine Tai was confirmed as the U.S. Trade Representative. Tai will be the first woman of color in this role.

Tai’s nomination hearing focused on a worker and labor-centric trade policy as well as a return to multilateralism, which we believe will include more active participation in the World Trade Organization. She stated that the office of the USTR would create trade policy while working alongside other executive branch departments, including Treasury and the Department of Commerce.

This policy reflects the priorities of the Biden administration to shift away from the Trump administration’s focus on bilateral trade agreements and a different course for USTR, which is expected to engage a broader consensus in advancing trade policies.

For insight into Ambassador Tai’s labor-centered and environmental approaches to trade policy, the USMCA demonstrates her priorities.  She helped draft USMCA as chief trade counsel on the House Ways and Means Committee. Additionally, Ms. Tai stated in her confirmation hearing that environmental policy should be a part of trade policy.

____________________________________________________________________

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

Julia Banegas is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.

tariff

U.S. Agrees to Temporarily Suspend Tariffs on UK and EU Goods in Large Civil Aircraft Dispute

In a joint statement released by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), the U.S. and European Union (“EU”) have agreed to temporarily suspend the additional tariffs from the Large Civil Aircraft Dispute. Goods imported from EU countries, including dairy products and liquors, will temporarily not be subject to the additional 25 percent duties under Section 301. The temporary suspension will initially last four months. USTR has not yet announced a specific date when the suspension on tariffs for EU goods will begin. USTR plans to share that information in a forthcoming Federal Register notice.

Additionally, the USTR announced a similar temporary suspension of tariffs imposed on goods imported from the United Kingdom (“UK”) related to the Large Civil Aircraft Dispute. The temporary suspension began on March 4, 2021 and will remain in effect until at least July 2021.

As previously reported, the initial onslaught of duties occurred in October 2019 when the U.S. imposed duties on new European large civil aircrafts and 25 percent tariffs on agricultural and other products. In retaliation, in November 2020 the EU imposed $4 billion of tariffs on American products. In a statement, EU President von der Leyen sees this as a “fresh start” with the U.S. President von der Leyen also expressed that both countries are “committed to focus on resolving our aircraft disputes, based on the work our respective trade representatives. This is excellent news for businesses and industries on both sides of the Atlantic, and a very positive signal for our economic cooperation in the years to come.”

The UK government had suspended retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods subject to tariffs on January 1, 2021. Given the current suspension of the tariffs, the UK government and USTR intend to use this time to focus on negotiating a settlement to the dispute and address challenges posed by new entrants to the civil aviation market.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

wines

USTR Increases Tariffs on Aircraft Parts and Certain Wines and Distilled Spirits from France and Germany

Since October 18, 2019, the U.S. has imposed additional duties on various European origin goods (including aircraft, certain textiles and wearing apparel, hardware, cheeses, and other agricultural goods) due to the ongoing Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) dispute with the European Union (EU).

On December 30, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that in response to certain EU actions involving duties imposed on U.S. goods in related litigation at the World Trade Organization, the U.S. was adding LCA-dispute tariffs to certain products imported from the EU; specifically, certain aircraft manufacturing parts, non-sparkling wines, and cognacs and other grape brandies, but only if the goods are from France or Germany. All previously announced LCA-dispute tariffs remain in effect.

The additional duties for the newly listed goods will go into effect when entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time January 12, 2021.

The additional goods subject to LCA-dispute tariffs and their corresponding tariff provisions are as follows:

Additional goods (wine and spirits) from France and Germany subject to 25% tariff to duties effective January 12, 2021:

-Effervescent grape wine, in containers holding 2 liters or less (subject to subheading 2204.21.20).

-Tokay wine (not carbonated) not over 14% alcohol, in containers not over 2 liters (subject to subheading 2204.21.30).

-Marsala wine, over 14% vol. alcohol, in containers holding 2 liters or less (subject to subheading 2204.21.60).

-Grape wine, other than Marsala, not sparkling or effervescent, over 14% vol. alcohol, in containers holding 2 liters or less (subject to subheading 2204.21.80).

-Wine of fresh grapes, other than sparkling wine, of an alcoholic strength by volume <=14% in containers holding over 2 liters but not over 4 liters (subject to subheading 2204.22.20).

-Wine of fresh grapes, other than sparkling wine, of an alcoholic strength by volume >14% in containers holding over 2 liters but not over 4 liters (subject to subheading 2204.22.40).

-Wine of fresh grapes, other than sparkling wine, of an alcoholic strength by volume <=14% in containers holding over 4 liters but not over 10 liters (subject to subheading 2204.22.60).

-Wine of fresh grapes, other than sparkling wine, of an alcoholic strength by volume >14% in containers holding over 4 liters but not over 10 liters (subject to subheading 2204.22.80).

-Wine of fresh grapes, other than sparkling wine, of an alcoholic strength by volume <=14% in containers holding >10 liters (subject to subheading 2204.29.61).

-Wine of fresh grapes, other than sparkling wine, of an alcoholic strength by volume >14% in containers holding >10 liters (subject to subheading 2204.29.81).

-Grape must, nesoi, in fermentation or with fermentation arrested otherwise than by the addition of alcohol (subject to subheading 2204.30.00).

-Spirits obtained by distilling grape wine or grape marc (grape brandy), other than Pisco and Singani, in containers each holding not over 4 liters, valued over $38 per proof liter (subject to subheading 2208.20.40**).

Additional goods (aircraft parts) from France and Germany subject to an additional 15% duty effective January 12, 2021:

-Fuselages and fuselage sections, wings and wing assemblies (other than wings having exterior surfaces of carbon composite material), horizontal stabilizers, and vertical stabilizers as defined in U.S. note 21(t), suitable for use solely or principally with new airplanes and other aircraft of an unladen weight over 30,000 kg as described in subheading 9903.89.05 (described in statistical reporting number 8803.30.0030) (subject to subheading 8803.30.00**).

USTR stated in its announcement that the additional LCA-dispute duties were being implemented “in a restrained way” to counter what is believed to be the unfair use of certain trade data. Specifically, the WTO authorized the U.S. to impose LCA-dispute tariffs on $7.5 billion of EU goods. Thereafter, the WTO authorized the EU in related litigation to impose tariffs affecting up to $4 billion in U.S. trade. When calculating the duty impact to achieve the permitted $4 billion, the EU used trade data from a time period (August 2019 – July 2020) during which trade was substantially diminished due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. As such, when the EU tariffs are applied to trade volumes in a more normal period, the resulting duties exceed the permitted $4 billion.

In response, the U.S. is mirroring the EU’s time period, the result being that current LCA-dispute tariffs applied to goods during that time period result in additional duties substantially less than the $7.5 billion authorized by the WTO.  Consequently, the USTR’s recently announced tariffs on additional goods from France and Germany are designed to raise the LCA-dispute duties on EU goods during the August 2019 – July 2020 time period to approximately $7.5 billion.

________________________________________________________________

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.

corruption

U.S. and Brazil Update Agreement to Increase Transparency and Combat Corruption

The United States and Brazil signed a new protocol on anti-corruption and trade facilitation as an update to the existing 2011 Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC). According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the protocol adds three new annexes with provisions on customs procedures, transparent regulatory practices, and anti-corruption policies.

Annex I, “Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation”, includes provisions to increase customs cooperation between the U.S. and Brazil, including on trade enforcement. These provisions include agreeing to online publication of customs information, the acceptance of electronic documents under international standards, mechanisms to ensure consistent customs treatment from port to port, and a single window for electronic submission of import, export, and transit documentation.

Annex II, “Good Regulatory Practices”, includes provisions to provide greater transparency about Brazil’s regulatory procedures. These provisions include agreeing to online publication of draft regulations, providing opportunity for interested parties to comment, and encourage authorities to assess regulations to reduce regulatory burden.

Annex III, “Anticorruption”, includes commitments to prevent and combat corruption, including provisions to preclude the tax deductibility of bribes, provisions regarding the maintenance of books and records, and provisions to establish whistleblower protections for those who report corruption.

The full protocol to the ATEC and a fact sheet can be found on the USTR’s website.

_____________________________________________________________

Stephen Brophy is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office focusing on international trade.

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

trade

A Tipping Point in the Trade War? 4 Tips to Consider Now.

While reassured by a recommitment to the U.S.-China trade agreement, companies still need to be vigilant in protecting their supply chains from pandemic aftershocks – and election-year unpredictability.

Think back – way back – to January 2020. The U.S. and China signed the Phase 1 trade accord, agreeing to roll back tariffs, expand trade purchases and renew pledges on intellectual property.

Many global shippers felt encouraged by the prospect of improved trading days ahead. And various American businesses welcomed the chance to equalize their trade footing and to counteract China’s intellectual property practices.

While many companies continue to manage through the hefty impact of the various trade remedy measures of Sections 201, 232, and 301 of the Trade Act, there was hope that Phase 2 of the trade deal between the U.S. and China would signal even better prospects.

But then the coronavirus claimed center stage. Its supply-chain side effects dominated the global marketplace, turning it into a de facto PPE-and-sanitizer delivery system – presenting shippers and manufacturers with an entirely different set of obstacles.

Many global manufacturers and suppliers pivoted to face mask production. French winemakers turned fine wine into the finest hand sanitizer. And American companies in search of these supplies turned to new sources globally, navigating the choppy waters of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) importing requirements and those of other government agencies in the process.

The administration’s 90-day deferral of import tax payments offered temporary relief to some companies. But for nearly eight months, manufacturers and shippers remained in a state of suspended apprehension when it came to the future of trans-Pacific trading.

Finally, on August 24, U.S. and China trade representatives officially recommitted to carrying out Phase 1 of the trade accord.

The chessboard today
Now, as the U.S. presidential election comes into view, the spotlight is once again on the global chessboard of tit-for-tat tariff moves, amplified by the Trump administration’s desire to counter the practices of U.S. trade partners and address the U.S. trade deficit.

As part of a longstanding dispute over aircraft subsidies, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initially imposed 10% tariffs on Airbus aircraft – but increased that to 15% in March. Also announced this August, the USTR decided to maintain 15% tariffs on Airbus aircraft and threatened 25% tariffs on other European goods, such as food, wine, and spirits, including a tariff on imported French makeup and handbags, in retaliation against France’s Digital Service Tax (DST). However, no tariffs have been imposed yet as France has not implemented DST.

Trade winds have been equally tempestuous on both sides of the U.S. border. After the U.S. imposed tariffs on aluminum from Canada, Canada retaliated with its own trade penalties.

And the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which took effect this past July, was reassuring for many companies that even dubbed it the new NAFTA. While some North America cross-border shippers are still grappling with compliance and weighing potential trade gains, its changes to cross-border trade overall have been well received by many businesses.

Now, businesses are speculating on the potential supply chain effects in the months to come. Will U.S. tariffs on a long list of Chinese goods be rolled back during the next round of negotiations? That has become the $350 billion question.

Many answers, and potential changes, hinge on the upcoming presidential election.

Be ready for new rollouts
You may recall that the USTR announced – and imposed – some section 301 tariffs quickly after their announcement. While tariffs were suspended on $160 billion in Chinese goods (List 4B) – pending the success of Phase 1 of the agreement – it’s not known if they are suspended indefinitely or if these tariffs could again come into play, further spiking import costs.

Although most believe a swift post-election reversal is unlikely, it’s easy to see the two main party presidential nominees have different strategies on how they would carry out international trade and tariffs post-November. For that reason, the safest course is to be prepared for any outcome. Here’s what you should consider in the coming months to help your company prepare:

1. Speak up about exclusions
So far, the USTR has granted about 2,000 exclusions related to section 301 tariffs, and over 75 exclusions from other section tariffs – many in response to importers’ petitions. In fact, the USTR has announced exclusions to multiple product lists. And while comment periods are over for now, it’s important for companies to voice their opinion for or against tariffs as they’re proposed.

The refunds are retroactive, so some importers stand to gain millions in refunds for previously paid duties.

Since an early exclusion request can produce earlier duty exclusions, vigilance in monitoring and applying for exclusions is vital. But the submission process can be lengthy and complex, requiring businesses to record and report all import product categories that relate to each applicable tariff number or specific product. This is an instance where having a knowledgeable customs broker and trusted advisor, who you can rely on to help and provide expertise, can come in handy.

2. Reconsider drawback and deferment programs
The trade programs you ruled out in the past could be a financial boon now. For example, it may be worth revisiting duty drawback programs, which provide a refund on previously imported goods that are subsequently exported, so consider your current import/export balance. Also, consider if 301 tariffs were to subside, would continuing the program still be practical for your supply chain?

Because formal application to this program can be quite rigorous, consider handing this task off to a 3rd party expert.

You may also want to reconsider bonded warehousing or using a foreign trade zone. Companies that produce major equipment or large machinery, for example, often experience significant lag times between production and sale – incurring duty payments of $200,000 or more per machine.

If you’re not planning on selling major equipment over the next 6 months, it might make sense to import the product into a foreign trade zone and deploy duty deferment tools.

3. If you haven’t already, explore alternative sourcing or production options
The pandemic has reminded companies that diversification is key to business resilience. In practice, that may mean onboarding alternative suppliers or preparing to change production venues in the event of a coronavirus outbreak.

To protect margins as the price of Chinese goods, materials and tariffs climb, many U.S. businesses are turning to lower-priced suppliers in Vietnam and Malaysia. Not only do imports from these countries allow for the avoidance or reduction of tariffs, they can also provide the assurance of a ready workforce and steady material supply.

4. Above all, stay informed
Like most business processes, proficient supply chain management hinges on your ability to manage countless moving parts, and plan and anticipate likely change.

During a global pandemic, amid an economic downturn, and in an election year, change may be the only thing we can predict. Efficiency and preparedness have never mattered more.

Stay current on policy changes and new trade regulations. Consult the USTR website often. Sign up for automated logistics updates and trade advisories. Stay close to your trade association, like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and other industry-specific groups. And turn to a proven 3PL before your internal logistics department becomes overwhelmed.

And then, fasten your seatbelt as we navigate the many changes on the horizon.

list 1

USTR to Consider Extending List 1 Exclusions Past October 2nd Expiration Date

On August 3, 2020, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice requesting comments on whether to extend specific exclusions on Chinese imports from the Section 301 List 1 that are set to expire on October 2, 2020. Companies whose List 1 Exclusions products were granted exclusions in notices published on October 2, 2019December 17, 2019, and February 11, 2020 are eligible to submit comments.

The due date for companies to submit their comments is August 30, 2020. USTR has stated that it will focus its evaluation on whether, despite the first imposition of these additional duties, the particular product remains available only from China. Additionally, USTR encourages companies to specifically address the following in their submission:

-Whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries.

-Any changes in the global supply chain since July 2018 with respect to the particular product or any other relevant industry developments.

-The efforts, if any, the importers or U.S. purchasers have undertaken since July 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.

-Whether the imposition of additional duties on the products will result in severe economic harm to the commenter.

___________________________________________________________

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