US to Impose Trade Measures on China as a Result of Section 301 Investigation

Dear Friends,

The President signed an executive memorandum earlier today that all companies that (i) import anything from China, (ii) do business in China, or (iii) export anything to China, should be aware of.  A copy of the memorandum is attached.

The memorandum was issued in response to an investigation the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) conducted into whether “China’s laws, policies, practices, or actions that may be unreasonable or discriminatory and that may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development” under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.  Based on the USTR’s investigation, the President has concluded that:

“First, China uses foreign ownership restrictions, including joint venture requirements, equity limitations, and other investment restrictions, to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies to Chinese entities.  China also uses administrative review and licensing procedures to require or pressure technology transfer, which, inter alia, undermines the value of U.S. investments and technology and weakens the global competitiveness of U.S. firms.

Second, China imposes substantial restrictions on, and intervenes in, U.S. firms’ investments and activities, including through restrictions on technology licensing terms.  These restrictions deprive U.S. technology owners of the ability to bargain and set market-based terms for technology transfer.  As a result, U.S. companies seeking to license technologies must do so on terms that unfairly favor Chinese recipients.

Third, China directs and facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and to generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by Chinese government industrial plans.

Fourth, China conducts and supports unauthorized intrusions into, and theft from, the computer networks of U.S. companies.  These actions provide the Chinese government with unauthorized access to intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, including technical data, negotiating positions, and sensitive and proprietary internal business communications, and they also support China’s strategic development goals, including its science and technology advancement, military modernization, and economic development.”  

Based on this, the President has directed the USTR to:

(1)    Publish a list of products imported from China to subject to increased duties by Friday, April 6, 2018;

(2)    Pursue WTO challenges to China’s “discriminatory licensing practices”; and

(3)    Report back to the President on progress on (1) and (2) within 60 days.

The President also directed the Secretary of the Treasury to propose appropriate actions to “address concerns about investment in the United States directed or facilitated by China in industries or technologies deemed important to the United States” and to report back within 60 days.

It is being widely-reported that the list of products to be targeted with increased duties represents approximately $60 billion in Chinese imports and impacts a range of industries, including high tech products, consumer electronics, apparel, footwear, etc.  The draft list is reported to include approximately 1,300 tariff lines.  Once published, the public will have 15 days to provide comments on the USTR’s proposal.  Any duties ultimately imposed will be in addition to any other duties currently payable (e.g., normal duties, AD/CVD, etc.).

On the investment front, there are underway efforts in Congress to update/strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) process, but this signals a desire by the President to not wait and, possibly, go further than what Congress is currently contemplating.

Finally, it is expected that China will impose retaliatory measures on articles imported from the United States in response to today’s announcement.  It is expected that a range of U.S. exports will be impacted, but most notably, agricultural exports. 

We hope that this update is helpful.  We will continue to monitor and provide updates on developments as they arise.  In the meantime, if you would like to discuss the issues involved here further, just let us know.

Best regards,

Ted

 

Advertisements

Challenge to How the Substantial Test is Applied to Pharmaceutical Products

Dear Friends,

We wanted to bring to your attention a recent development regarding an issue that has been a thorn in the sides of pharmaceutical companies for many years.  The development involves how the substantial transformation test is applied to pharmaceuticals for purposes of determining country of origin.

As you know, will generally be found to have occurred if the manufacturing or processing operation results in a change in (1) commercial designation or identity, (2) fundamental character, or (3) commercial use.  In the pharmaceutical context, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) long-standing position has been that, for single API products, formulation (i.e., mixing a bulk active with excipients and putting it up in dosage form) is generally not enough to work a substantial transformation.  As a result, if an active is produced in one country and shipped to another country for formulation, the formulating operations performed in the second country will not be sufficient to change the origin of the active ingredient.  In short, the origin of the API controls (of course, CBP in its wisdom gets a different result under the NAFTA Marking Rules, which is maddening). 

A pharmaceutical company is now challenging CBP’s long-standing position at the Court of International Trade (CIT).  The case stems from an adverse final determination issued in the government procurement context.  CBP determined that the pharmaceutical at issue is not substantially transformed in the United States because the API, sourced from India, retains its chemical and physical properties upon processing in the United States.  The determination is adverse because, as a result of not being considered to be substantially transformed in the United States, the company’s product is not eligible for procurement by the U.S. government (India is not a TAA country).   In response to this determination, the company filed suit at the CIT.  The company argues that the API is substantially transformed into a new and different product with a different use as a result of the processes performed in the United States.  A copy of the compliant is attached for your reference. 

The case is significant because it means that CBP’s long-standing position of what constitutes a substantially transformation will be reviewed by an independent, third party — the CIT.  A positive outcome for the company could impact how country of origin is determined for pharmaceutical products across the board.

If this issue has caused you heartburn (or if your company sources API from non-TAA countries like India, China, etc. but formulates the finished products in TAA countries, like the U.S., Canada, Ireland, etc.), then you may want to consider weighing in at the CIT.  We would be happy to discuss how best to do that with you further.  If such a discussion would be helpful, just let us know. 

Best regards,

Ted

Section 232 Duties on Steel & Aluminum — Process for Product Exclusions

Dear Friends, 

Further to the below, the Department of Commerce will publish procedures for (i) requesting product-based exclusions from the section 232 duties on steel and aluminum, and (ii) objecting to such requests, in tomorrow’s Federal Register (an advance copy of the Federal Register notice is attached here).  Any company potentially interested in seeking an exclusion for one or more articles covered by the section 232 duties should review the notice.  In particular, there are a number of key items worth noting:

(1) exclusion petitions may be submitted only by “individuals or organizations using [steel or aluminum] articles . . . in business activities . . . in the United States”;

(2) objections to exclusion petitions may be submitted by “any individual or organization in the United States”; 

(3) any approved exclusion petitions will be limited to a specific article (unless Commerce specifies a broader exclusion is granted) and to the petitioner (i.e., you cannot generally get the benefit of someone else’s exclusion petition); you can, however, file “follow-on” petitions;

(4) exclusions petitions must be filed electronically, using a specific form created for this purpose; objections must be filed within 30 days of an exclusion petition being filed, also using a specific form; petitions can cover only a single 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification; and the review process will generally take 90 days from date of filing; and

(5) approved exclusions will be effective 5 business days after the approval is published; and will “generally” be good for 1 year.

Product exclusion petitions will only be approved “if an article is not produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount, is not produced in the United States in a satisfactory quality, or for a specific national security consideration.”  We expect that Commerce will approve petitions only sparingly, and primarily for valid national security-related considerations. 

Product based exclusions can be filed beginning tomorrow, March 19, 2018.  If you are considering doing so, we recommend filing as soon as possible.  That said, it is important that your petition be as well prepared as possible (e.g., consider scope issues, the import data, whether there are any national security implications/allies in the federal government, any likely objections, etc.) to give it the best chance of success.  We are assisting many clients prepare petitions and would be happy to discuss this with you further.  If you are interested in doing so, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted

Section 232 Recommendations (Steel & Aluminum Reports) – Part III

It is being reported that the formal announcement regarding the section 232 duties will come as early as Thursday this week.  The reports also contain unclear/conflicting information on whether imports from certain countries could be exempted (the President had previously said that there would be no country-based exceptions, but that now seems to be in flux).  More to follow . . . .


Dear Friends,

Further to the below, it is being widely reported that the President has decided to impose a 25% duty on imported steel and a 10% duty on imported aluminum next week in response to the reports from Commerce.  It is not yet clear whether those additional duties will apply on imports from all countries, or just to imports from a subset of countries.

More to follow on this.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted


Dear Friends,

As you may recall, early last year, President Trump issued two presidential memoranda instructing the U.S. Commerce Department to initiate an investigation into the national security implications of steel imports and aluminum imports into the United States.  If these so-called “section 232” (section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended) investigations determine that steel import and/or aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security[,]” then the President can impose additional customs duties (among other things) on covered products.

Last Friday, the Secretary of Commerce issued his reports to the President in both matters (available here).   In each case, the Department of Commerce concluded that the quantities and circumstances surrounding steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” thereby opening the door to the imposition of import restraints.  Specifically, Commerce’s recommendations are as follows:

Steel – Alternative Remedies

1.  A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

The measures would apply to steel mill products classified in subheadings 7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90.

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. steel producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

Aluminum – Alternative Remedies

1.  A tariff of at least 7.7% on all aluminum exports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of 23.6% on all products from China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela and Vietnam. All the other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all imports from all countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the United States.

These measures would apply to unwrought aluminum (heading 7601), aluminum castings and forgings (subheadings 7616.99.51.60 and 7616.99.51.70), aluminum plat, sheet, strip and foil (flat rolled products) (headings 7606 and 7607); aluminum wire (heading 7605); aluminum bars, rods and profiles (heading 7604); aluminum tubes and pipes (heading 7608); and aluminum tube and pipe fittings (heading 7609).

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. aluminum producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

The reports and recommendations are now under consideration by the President.  The President is required to make a decision on the recommendations by April 11th (for steel) and by April 19th (for aluminum).

*           *           *

We believe that it is likely that the President will take some action to “adjust imports” based on these reports.  Accordingly, all companies that rely on steel and/or aluminum articles need to evaluate the impact such action may have on their production.  This would apply not only to companies that import covered articles (which will be the articles hit with additional duties and/or quota limitations), but companies that import downstream articles (e.g., parts made of steel or aluminum) as well.  The actions being contemplated are significant enough to have a ripple effect that impacts far more than just the covered products.

If you have any questions about these reports, or what sort of evaluation you should be doing as a result, please let us know.

Best regards,

Ted

Section 232 Recommendations (Steel & Aluminum Reports) Part II

Dear Friends,

Further to the below, it is being widely reported that the President has decided to impose a 25% duty on imported steel and a 10% duty on imported aluminum next week in response to the reports from Commerce.  It is not yet clear whether those additional duties will apply on imports from all countries, or just to imports from a subset of countries.   

More to follow on this.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please let us know.

Best regards,
Ted


Dear Friends,

As you may recall, early last year, President Trump issued two presidential memoranda instructing the U.S. Commerce Department to initiate an investigation into the national security implications of steel imports and aluminum imports into the United States.  If these so-called “section 232” (section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended) investigations determine that steel import and/or aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security[,]” then the President can impose additional customs duties (among other things) on covered products.

Last Friday, the Secretary of Commerce issued his reports to the President in both matters (available here).   In each case, the Department of Commerce concluded that the quantities and circumstances surrounding steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” thereby opening the door to the imposition of import restraints.  Specifically, Commerce’s recommendations are as follows:

Steel – Alternative Remedies

1.  A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

The measures would apply to steel mill products classified in subheadings 7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90.

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. steel producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

Aluminum – Alternative Remedies

1.  A tariff of at least 7.7% on all aluminum exports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of 23.6% on all products from China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela and Vietnam. All the other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all imports from all countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the United States.

These measures would apply to unwrought aluminum (heading 7601), aluminum castings and forgings (subheadings 7616.99.51.60 and 7616.99.51.70), aluminum plat, sheet, strip and foil (flat rolled products) (headings 7606 and 7607); aluminum wire (heading 7605); aluminum bars, rods and profiles (heading 7604); aluminum tubes and pipes (heading 7608); and aluminum tube and pipe fittings (heading 7609).

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. aluminum producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

The reports and recommendations are now under consideration by the President.  The President is required to make a decision on the recommendations by April 11th (for steel) and by April 19th (for aluminum).

*           *           *

We believe that it is likely that the President will take some action to “adjust imports” based on these reports.  Accordingly, all companies that rely on steel and/or aluminum articles need to evaluate the impact such action may have on their production.  This would apply not only to companies that import covered articles (which will be the articles hit with additional duties and/or quota limitations), but companies that import downstream articles (e.g., parts made of steel or aluminum) as well.  The actions being contemplated are significant enough to have a ripple effect that impacts far more than just the covered products.

If you have any questions about these reports, or what sort of evaluation you should be doing as a result, please let us know.

Best regards,

Ted

Section 232 Recommendation (Steel & Aluminum Reports)

Dear Friends,

As you may recall, early last year, President Trump issued two presidential memoranda instructing the U.S. Commerce Department to initiate an investigation into the national security implications of steel imports and aluminum imports into the United States.  If these so-called “section 232” (section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended) investigations determine that steel import and/or aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security[,]” then the President can impose additional customs duties (among other things) on covered products.

Last Friday, the Secretary of Commerce issued his reports to the President in both matters (available here).   In each case, the Department of Commerce concluded that the quantities and circumstances surrounding steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” thereby opening the door to the imposition of import restraints.  Specifically, Commerce’s recommendations are as follows:

Steel – Alternative Remedies

1.  A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

The measures would apply to steel mill products classified in subheadings 7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90.

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. steel producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

Aluminum – Alternative Remedies

1.  A tariff of at least 7.7% on all aluminum exports from all countries, or

2.  A tariff of 23.6% on all products from China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela and Vietnam. All the other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

3.  A quota on all imports from all countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the United States.

These measures would apply to unwrought aluminum (heading 7601), aluminum castings and forgings (subheadings 7616.99.51.60 and 7616.99.51.70), aluminum plat, sheet, strip and foil (flat rolled products) (headings 7606 and 7607); aluminum wire (heading 7605); aluminum bars, rods and profiles (heading 7604); aluminum tubes and pipes (heading 7608); and aluminum tube and pipe fittings (heading 7609).

The goal of such measures is to ensure that U.S. aluminum producers utilize 80% of production of capacity.

The recommendation also includes a process to allow Commerce to grant requests from U.S. companies for specific product exclusions if there was insufficient domestic production, or for national security considerations.

The reports and recommendations are now under consideration by the President.  The President is required to make a decision on the recommendations by April 11th (for steel) and by April 19th (for aluminum). 

*           *           *

We believe that it is likely that the President will take some action to “adjust imports” based on these reports.  Accordingly, all companies that rely on steel and/or aluminum articles need to evaluate the impact such action may have on their production.  This would apply not only to companies that import covered articles (which will be the articles hit with additional duties and/or quota limitations), but companies that import downstream articles (e.g., parts made of steel or aluminum) as well.  The actions being contemplated are significant enough to have a ripple effect that impacts far more than just the covered products.

If you have any questions about these reports, or what sort of evaluation you should be doing as a result, please let us know.

Best regards,

Ted

 

Interesting First Sale Ruling

Dear Friends,

We wanted to make sure you saw a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Headquarters Ruling involving first sale that was just recently published.  Since many companies rely on first sale for meaningful duty savings, this ruling should be of interest to you.

First Sale Recap

As you know, in certain multi-tiered transactions (for example, involving a factory, a middleman and a U.S. purchaser/importer), the “first sale” principle of customs valuation allows the importer to declare as the customs value the price the middleman pays to the factory, rather than the price the importer pays to the middleman.  A first sale is viable for customs purposes three conditions are satisfied:  (1) it is a bona fide sale; (2) the merchandise is clearly destined to the United States at the time of the sale; and (3) it is an arm’s length price.  It is this third requirement that can the most difficult to satisfy, particularly where the factory and the middleman are related parties.  

The Ruling (HQ H272520)

This ruling focused on the arm’s length requirement for the first sale.  If an importer wants to use a related party price as the customs value, the importer must be able to establish that the parties’ relationship did not influence the price.  There are a few established ways for an importer to accomplish this, but the most common way is using what CBP refers to as the “all costs plus a profit” test, which is derived from an interpretive note in the CBP regulations.

Succinctly, the “all costs plus a profit” test involves comparing the profitability of a factory (usually a subsidiary of the middleman) with that of middleman (usually the parent of the factory).  In such a case, CBP would take the view that the factory’s profit margin must be equal to, or greater than, the profit margin earned by the middleman in order to be considered to be arm’s length.

In this ruling, the outcome of the “all costs plus a profit” test was different in different years.  In some years, the test was satisfied (so first sale was deemed viable for entries from those years).  In another year, the factory did not have a profit equal to, or greater than its parent company, so first sale was not allowed.

Key Takeaways

There are two key takeaways from this ruling:

First, this ruling was issued in response to a request for internal advice from the Port of Los Angeles after the port issued a CBP Form 28 Request for Information to an importer.  This is significant because it shows that CBP at the port/CEE level is questioning first sale.  All importers who utilize first sale should be thinking of these issues and be ready to respond.

Second, companies that are relying on first sale as a duty savings strategy need to be focused on whether they have objective evidence that related-party first sales qualify as arm’s length sales.  If a factory covers its costs and earns a profit, that is some indication that the factory’s sales are at arm’s length, but it may not be sufficient to satisfy the “all costs plus a profit” test, as this ruling demonstrates.  Companies should ensure that they have performed adequate diligence of this issue before claiming first sale.

To that end, just because a factory’s profit isn’t high enough to satisfy the “all costs plus a profit” test doesn’t mean that first sale is categorically unavailable.  Under the statute, a related party first sale can be a valid customs value if the circumstances of sale indicate that the relationship did not influence the price.  As this ruling indicates, this is a question to be proved, not assumed.  Working in conjunction with our in-house team of economists, we have developed secondary economic analyses that are useful in precisely these circumstances—establishing economically sound, empirical data which support the conclusion that the sale between a related factory and middleman is arm’s length. 

We have produced these economic analyses for various clients, and would be happy to discuss these, or any other first sale issues with you further.  If such a discussion would be helpful, just let us know.

Best regards,

Ted