With the deadline approaching for full implementation of the Section 232 tariffs on certain steel and aluminum imports, President Trump on April 30, 2018 relented to increasing pressure and extended the tariff exemptions for key U.S. allies until June 1, 2018. In making the announcement, the Trump administration announced that it had previously reached a final agreement with South Korea on steel imports and has also reached agreements in principle with Argentina, Australia and Brazil on both steel and aluminum imports. In addition, the president indicated that he was extending the country-based exemptions for Canada, Mexico and the European Union for a final 30 days. In all these negotiations, the administration has been focused “on quotas that will restrain imports, prevent transshipment, and protect the national security.” Until June 1, 2018, the United States will maintain current tariff levels for Canada, Mexico and the EU.

The president previously noted in Presidential Proclamation 9711 that the tariffs, initially implemented on March 23, 2018 for most U.S. trading partners, would be extended until May 1, 2018 in recognition of the important security relationship between the United States and these countries while the parties sought alternative means to address the threatened impairment to U.S. national security by imports of steel and aluminum articles from those countries. Unless exempted, the tariffs under these Section 232 trade actions are 25 percent on certain imported steel and 10 percent on certain imported aluminum. Separate from the White House June 1 extension announcement, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that these countries will have to agree to reduce the volume of their exports to the United States, indicating that “If people don’t have the tariffs, and they don’t have the quota, that would defeat the whole purpose” of the Section 232 investigations and recommended actions.

It is already known that South Korea has agreed to cap its annual steel exports to the United States at approximately 70 percent of the country’s annual shipments from 2015 to 2017; the aluminum tariff remains in place for South Korea. While yesterday’s announcement indicated that agreements had been reached with Australia, Argentina and Brazil, no details were made available. Negotiations will continue with the remaining countries subject to the extensions (Canada, Mexico and the EU), significant U.S. steel and aluminum trade partners, for the next 30 days.

For additional details on these extensions, see Presidential Proclamation Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States and Presidential Proclamation Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States.

In its self-initiated investigation, the Department of Commerce has preliminarily determined that countervailing duties (CVD) should be assessed for imports of aluminum sheet from China to counteract Chinese government subsidies. Commerce calculated a 31.20 percent CVD rate for Chinese respondent Yong Jie New Material Co., Ltd.; a 34.99 percent CVD rate for respondents Henan Mingtai Industrial Co., Ltd. and Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd.; and a 33.10 percent CVD rate for all other Chinese producers and exporters. Due to their failure to cooperate in the investigation, Commerce assigned a 113.30 percent CVD rate to respondents Chalco Ruimin Co., Ltd. and Chalco-SWA Cold Rolling Co., Ltd. Continue Reading Department of Commerce Preliminarily Determines Countervailing Duties for U.S. Imports of Chinese Aluminum Sheet

On April 12, 2018, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing to explore the effects on the U.S. economy and jobs of the tariff increases related to Section 232 and Section 301 investigations. Before the hearing, Chairman Kevin Brady stated, “In enforcing our trade laws, we should always take a targeted approach to address unfair practices while avoiding harm to U.S. workers and job creators. Our private sector witnesses will discuss the impact of recently announced U.S. tariff increases on their businesses, including product and country coverage of the tariffs, the process to comment on and apply for exclusions from the tariffs, and the effects of possible retaliation on U.S. exporters.” In his opening comments, Brady highlighted China’s questionable trade policies and practices, but also asked, “How do you avoid punishing Americans for China’s misbehavior?” Continue Reading House Committee Holds Hearing on Effects of Tariff Increases on U.S. Economy and Jobs

On April 11, 2018, the Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing regarding the challenges that U.S. businesses, manufacturers and service providers face when trying to access the Chinese market. Links to the witnesses’ written testimony are provided below. Before the committee, these industry witnesses consistently indicated that a long-term strategy – with clear objectives and a timeline – was needed to address China’s trade practices. Perhaps, most poignantly, Dean Garfield, president and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, stated, “The U.S.-China relationship is as complex as it is important. The relationship has always been – and likely will continue to be – one of both competition and cooperation. We need to approach managing difficulties in the bilateral trade relationship with the nuance and deliberation they deserve, recognizing that both action and inaction will have consequences for years to come, in positive and negative respects.” He later added that the United States, regardless of China’s practices, must rebalance its approach to strengthening the U.S. economy because, “Regardless of whether China plays by the rules or not, it will continue to develop significant capacity for technological development, innovation, and growth. The United States must be prepared to compete.” Continue Reading Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Market Access Challenges in China

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), in consultation with the Department of State, has sanctioned numerous Russian oligarchs and the companies they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company. In his announcement, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated, “The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities. Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government’s destabilizing activities.”

The full list of individuals and entities being placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list is available here. With the placement of these persons and entities on the SDN list, U.S. persons are now generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them, and all assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these designated individuals and entities are frozen. OFAC has cautioned that non-U.S. persons could face sanctions for knowingly facilitating significant transactions for or on behalf of these Russian individuals or entities.

Generally, the Russian oligarchs placed on the SDN list are known for their involvement in Russia’s energy sector and are close allies to Russian President Vladimir Putin or are current Russian government officials. Many of the companies these oligarchs own or control have also been sanctioned and placed on the SDN List. They are: B-Finance Ltd.; Basic Element Limited; EN+ Group PLC; JSC EuroSibEnergo; United Company RUSAL PLC; Russian Machines; GAZ Group; Agroholding Kuban; Gazprom Burenie, OOO; NPV Engineering Open Joint Stock Company; Ladoga Menedzhment, OOO; Russian Machines; and Renova Group. OFAC has cautioned that this list of companies owned or controlled by the sanctioned Russian oligarchs should not be viewed as exhaustive, and reminds U.S. persons and companies of OFAC’s 50 percent rule. Under this rule, property and interests in property of entities directly or indirectly owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more persons or entities placed on the SDN list are considered blocked regardless of whether such entities appear on the list. Appropriate party screening and due diligence will increasingly be necessary when U.S. persons or companies engage in transactions in Russia.

Given the scope of these sanctions, OFAC has issued General License No. 12 to allow for U.S. companies currently engaged in transactions with these Russian companies to wind down operations and conclude contracts or other agreements that were in effect before April 6, 2018. All activities with these Russian companies must conclude by June 5, 2018. OFAC has issued General License No. 13, authorizing U.S. persons to undertake any necessary transactions necessary to divest or transfer any debt, equity or other holdings in EN+ Group PLC, GAZ Group and United Company RUSAL PLC by May 7, 2018.

Due to Russia’s continued support of the Assad regime and its destabilizing activities in Syria, OFAC has sanctioned Rosoboroneksport, a state-owned Russian weapons trading company, and its related bank, Russian Financial Corporation. Rosoboroneksport has been placed on OFAC’s SDN list and its Sectoral Sanctions Identifications (SSI) list, a list identifying persons and entities operating in certain sectors of the Russian economy (such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering and defense) under which the United States has placed certain additional restrictions limiting U.S. companies from engaging in specific transactions with such SSI listed entities.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has released its annual report on significant foreign trade barriers, providing an inventory of the most important foreign barriers affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, foreign direct investment by U.S. persons and protection of intellectual property rights. The term “trade barriers” does not have a fixed definition but is broadly defined by the USTR as government laws, regulations, policies or practices that either protect domestic goods and services from foreign competition, artificially stimulate exports of particular domestic goods and services, or fail to provide adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights. The report classifies foreign trade barriers into 10 different categories, including import policies, government procurement, export subsidies, lack of intellectual property protections and service/investment barriers. Continue Reading USTR Releases 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers

Announcing that China’s unfair trade practices in the areas of technology transfers and intellectual property result in harm to the U.S. economy of at least $50 billion per year, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum announcing the findings of his administration’s Section 301 investigation into these practices by the People’s Republic of China. This trade action is the result of a Section 301 investigation initiated on August 18, 2017 pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether acts, policies and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are actionable under that statute. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has prepared a report on the findings of its investigation detailing the acts, policies and practices undertaken by China that are harmful to the United States. According to the report:

  • China uses joint venture requirements, foreign ownership/investment restrictions, equity limitations, and administrative review and licensing processes to force or pressure technology transfers from American companies.
  • China uses discriminatory technology licensing processes and restrictions to transfer technologies from U.S. companies to Chinese companies.
  • China directs and facilitates systematic investments and acquisitions in U.S. companies and assets that result in large-scale technology transfers in industries deemed important to China’s industrial plans.
  • China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. computer networks to gain access to valuable business information, such as intellectual property, trade secrets or other confidential business information.

According to the USTR, these unfair technology transfers and intellectual property policies are part of China’s intentional efforts to seize economic leadership in advanced technology as described in its industrial plans, such as “Made in China 2025.” In making the announcement, USTR Robert Lighthizer stated, “President Trump has made it clear we must insist on fair and reciprocal trade with China and strictly enforce our laws against unfair trade. This requires taking effective action to confront China over its state-led efforts to force, strong-arm, and even steal U.S. technology and intellectual property. Years of talking about these problems with China has not worked. The United States is committed to using all available tools to respond to China’s unfair, market-distorting behavior. China’s unprecedented and unfair trade practices are a serious challenge not just to the United States, but to our allies and partners around the world.”

In the Presidential Memorandum, President Trump directed his administration to take the following actions to respond to China’s acts, policies and practices involving the unfair and harmful acquisition of U.S. technology:

  • WTO Case: At the direction of the president, the USTR will file a complaint regarding China’s discriminatory technology licensing practices through a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement proceeding.
  • 25 Percent Ad Valorem Duties: The USTR will propose additional tariffs on certain products of China, with an annual trade value commensurate with the harm caused to the U.S. economy resulting from China’s unfair policies. The proposed product list subject to the tariffs will include aerospace, information and communication technology, and machinery.
  • Investment Restrictions: The president also has directed his administration to respond to Chinese investment aimed at obtaining key U.S. technologies. Relevant departments and agencies will work with the Treasury Department to propose measures addressing China’s investment practices involving the acquisition of sensitive technologies.

Regarding the 25 percent duties, the USTR will publish a proposed list of products subject to these additional tariffs within the next 15 days. Once published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposed tariff action. Further, the USTR will hold a public hearing at a date yet to be determined. Once the USTR has conducted its review and analysis, a final determination on the products to be covered under any additional tariffs will be published and go into effect.

For more details on the initiation of the investigation, see Thompson Hine LLP’s International Trade & Intellectual Property Update.

As expected, President Trump has formally requested from Congress a three-year extension of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) pursuant to the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. In requesting the extension of TPA, which is due to expire July 1, 2018, the president noted, “Extension of trade authorities procedures is essential to fulfill that task and to demonstrate to our trading partners that my Administration and the Congress share a common goal when it comes to trade.” In his Presidential Message to Congress seeking TPA renewal, the president stated that his administration “has launched a new era in American trade policy, driven by a determination to use the leverage available to us as the world’s largest economy to open foreign markets, and to obtain more efficient global markets and fairer treatment for American workers. One of the major pillars supporting my trade policy is the pursuit of better trade deals.”

TPA, also referred to as “fast track authority,” is the process that allows the president to negotiate certain international trade agreements that Congress will consider for approval under expedited legislative procedures, provided the president observes certain statutory obligations. TPA defines how Congress has chosen to exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade policy, while giving the president added leverage to negotiate trade agreements by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners that final agreements will be given timely and unamended consideration.

The Department of Commerce has released information setting forth the process for how parties in the United States may submit requests for product-based exclusions from tariffs implemented by President Trump under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to protect national security from threats resulting from imports of aluminum and steel, as previously detailed in two presidential proclamations. The March 8, 2018 proclamations authorize the secretary of Commerce to grant exclusions from the tariffs upon the request of affected parties if the steel or aluminum articles are determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality or based upon specific national security considerations.

In a Federal Register notice to be published on Monday, March 19, 2018, Commerce is issuing an “interim” final rule seeking comments on the manner in which it intends to implement the requirements for submissions requesting product-based exclusions from the tariff remedies. While interim in nature, the notice indicates that sufficient conditions have been met to immediately implement the rule and, in turn, the requirements for seeking a product-based exclusion. Because, the notice states, normal clearance procedures would prevent or hinder the collection of information for national security purposes, and a delay in an effective date while seeking public comment could harm national security, the requirements for requesting product-based exclusions from the Section 232 aluminum and steel tariffs will be effective March 19.

The notice provides specific guidance as to how individuals or companies using steel or aluminum articles in business activities (e.g., construction, manufacturing or supplying steel/aluminum to users) in the United States may submit product-based exclusion requests. The notice is clear that these exclusions will be limited to entities located in the United States, since allowing those not engaged in business activities in the United States to seek such exclusions “could undermine the adjustment of imports that the President determined was necessary to address the threat to national security posed by the current import[s]” of these articles. Further, any approved exclusions will be made on a product basis and will be limited to the individual or organization that submitted the request, unless Commerce approves a broader application of that particular product’s exclusion. The notice also makes clear that the country-based exemptions to be handled through negotiations by the U.S. Trade Representative are separate and apart from the product-specific exclusion process.

Commerce is requiring that submissions requesting exclusion be filed using specific forms – Steel Exclusion Forms and Aluminum Exclusion Forms – that will be posted shortly on Commerce’s website. Forms for objecting to exclusion requests will also be posted at these web pages. Commerce notes that information submitted in exclusion requests and objections to submitted exclusion requests will be subject to public review and made available for public inspection and copying. Parties that have proprietary or business confidential information they believe to be relevant for consideration will need to indicate so on the forms. A party making an exclusion request must specify its business activities in the United States that provides it authorization and sufficient reason to request an exclusion. Exclusion requests (i.e., forms) that are incomplete will be denied. There is no time limit for submitting a product-based exclusion request.

The review process for considering an exclusion request (and any objections) will normally not exceed 90 days. Approved exclusions will be effective five business days after publication of the responses in the appropriate dockets for aluminum (Docket No. BIS-2018-0002) and steel (Docket No. BIS-2018-0006) on www.regulations.gov. Starting on that date, the requesting party will be able to rely upon the approved exclusion request in calculating the duties owed on the product imported in accordance with the terms listed in the approved exclusion request. Exclusions will generally be approved for one year.

The European Union (EU) has published a list of U.S. products it might target in retaliation if President Trump moves forward with tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from the Section 232 investigations. The list is divided into two categories:

  • Part A is a list of U.S. products that face immediate retaliation if the United States implements its steel tariffs. These products could face proportional EU tariffs of up to 25 percent. The EU also plans to file a complaint over the U.S. tariffs with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  • Part B is a list of U.S. products that would also be included if the WTO rules that the U.S. aluminum and steel tariffs are illegal.

The EU has indicated in a notice seeking comments that the publication of this list is a procedural step in preparing a response to any potential U.S. tariffs. The European Commission, which coordinates trade policy for the 28 EU members, has invited comments from private stakeholders affected by the forthcoming U.S. tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports. The commission is considering, as a first step, suspending tariff concessions under Article 8 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and, as a second step, subsequently and at the appropriate level, imposing increased customs duties on certain products from the United States.

The Thompson Hine Trump and Trade team recommends that U.S. companies that export to Europe review this proposed list to determine any potential impact on business activities. For additional background on the Section 232 investigations, the Department of Commerce’s reports and the subsequent presidential proclamations, please see Thompson Hine’s International Trade Update of March 13, 2018.