Section 301 of the Trade Act authorises the president to take retaliatory action if it is determined that a trade act, policy or practice of a foreign government is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts US commerce. December 2019 saw significant end-of-year developments on the Section 301 tariff front. US importers should take stock of these as they plan for 2020.
House Democrats and the Trump administration recently reached an agreement on the final text of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Once Canada and the United States have completed their ratification process, all three countries will move quickly to publish the critical uniform regulations. Company leaders must carefully follow these regulations, as they spell out new rules regarding USMCA compliance and preferential tariff treatment.
The US Trade Representative recently announced that it has determined that France's digital services tax is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts US commerce, and that it is proposing additional ad valorem duties of up to 100% on products from France under Section 301 of the Trade Act 1974. Parties seeking changes to the proposed list of tariff subheadings or lower duties should take advantage of the comment period.
Providers of telecoms, internet and digital services, as well as IT vendors and equipment manufacturers, will soon find doing deals with foreign entities a little more risky and complicated. A new review process soon to be underway at the Department of Commerce is designed to ferret out transactions that pose a threat to US national security, but provides parties whose deals are being evaluated little time to comment.
The US Court of International Trade recently denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by an importer challenging the government's use of a Cold War-era trade law to double national security tariffs on steel imports from Turkey. Transpacific Steel LLC had filed the lawsuit before the trade court in January 2019, arguing that the increase in tariffs was unlawful under the statute and violated the due process and equal protection requirements under the Constitution.