United States Challenges Five WTO Members Imposing Illegal Tariffs Against US Products - Office of U.S. Trade Representative
Retaliatory Tariffs Unfairly Target U.S. Products in Myriad Sectors
Washington, DC – The United States today (7/16/18) launched separate disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico and Turkey, challenging the tariffs each WTO Member imposed in response to President Trump’s actions on trade in aluminum and steel to protect the United States’ national security interests.
The U.S. steel and aluminum duties imposed by President Trump earlier this year are justified under international agreements the United States and its trading partners have approved. However, retaliatory duties on U.S. exports imposed by China, the EU, Canada, Mexico and Turkey are completely without justification under international rules.
“The actions taken by the President are wholly legitimate and fully justified as a matter of U.S. law and international trade rules. Instead of working with us to address a common problem, some of our trading partners have elected to respond with retaliatory tariffs designed to punish American workers, farmers and companies,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. “These tariffs appear to breach each WTO Member’s commitments under the WTO Agreement. The United States will take all necessary actions to protect our interests, and we urge our trading partners to work constructively with us on the problems created by massive and persistent excess capacity in the steel and aluminum sectors.”
BACKGROUND: In January 2018, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce issued reports finding that imports of steel and aluminum products threaten to impair our national security. On March 8, 2018, the President concurred with the Secretary of Commerce’s finding and imposed tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. The tariffs became effective for some WTO members on March 23, 2018, and for others on June 1, 2018. In response, these WTO Members have unfairly retaliated against products originating in the United States.
China
China’s retaliatory tariffs, effective April 2, 2018, impose 15 to 25 percent additional duties on $3.0 billion in U.S. imports (based on 2017 trade values).
European Union
The EU’s retaliatory tariffs are effective in two tiers. The first tier, effective June 22, 2018, imposes 10 to 25 percent additional duties on $3.2 billion in U.S. imports (based on 2017 trade values). Tier 2 is not effective until June 1, 2021. In tier 2, the EU will be imposing 10 to 50 percent additional duties on $4.2 billion in U.S. imports (based on 2017 trade values).
Turkey
Turkey’s retaliatory tariffs, effective June 21, 2018, impose 4 to 70 percent additional duties on $1.8 billion in U.S. imports (based on 2017 trade values).
Canada
Canada’s retaliatory tariffs, effective July 1, 2018, impose 10 to 25 percent duties on $12.7 billion in U.S. imports (based on 2017 trade values).
Mexico
Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs went into effect in two tranches, on June 5, 2018 and July 5, 2018. In total, Mexico is imposing 7 to 25 percent duties on $3.6 billion in U.S. imports (based on 2017 trade values).
Statement by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on the Formation of a New Work Group to Develop Focused Drug Importation Policy Options to Address Access Challenges Related to Certain Sole-Source Medicines with Limited Patient Availability, but no Blocking Patents or Exclusivities - Food & Drug Administration
As part of our public health mission, the Food and Drug Administration monitors the pharmaceutical supply chain to support patient access to medically necessary drugs. For example, as required by statute, the FDA maintains a publicly available list of drugs that are determined to be in shortage. We work closely with manufacturers and others to support patient access to these drugs while they’re in shortage.
We know, however, that for certain critical medicines, where there are no blocking patents or exclusivities associated with the drugs, but where there is only a single manufacturer (sole-source); conditions may develop that create significant barriers to, and ultimately threaten, patient access.
Such conditions could include dislocations in the supply chain or sudden, significant price increases that close off channels of availability. These circumstances can leave patients without access to drugs they need. These could be situations where there’s only one U.S. approved and marketed version of an old drug that’s not commonly used, but is still medically important. Many of these cases involve generic medicines. These disruptions can create public health consequences that are similar to the occurrence of a drug shortage.
We want to examine whether—under these narrow conditions—the additional market competition from the short-term importation of foreign versions of the drug may complement the FDA’s current efforts, and help meet near-term patient need in the U.S. until new competition is able to enter the domestic market.
To pursue these considerations, we’re forming a work group to explore various policy frameworks that, through the exercise of enforcement discretion or otherwise, would involve the importation of drugs under circumstances that meet these criteria and that would be suitable substitutes for the FDA-approved version of the medically-necessary drugs. We will consider whether and how the foreign versions of these medicines can be imported with adequate assurances of safety and effectiveness.
The work group is being asked to consider, among other things:
- The statutory and regulatory requirements relevant to developing and advancing such a policy;
- How the FDA will define an access dislocation in these circumstances;
- How the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services will evaluate the public health need for access to foreign-approved drugs in these situations;
- How the agency will assess the safety, effectiveness and labeling of a foreign-approved drug that could be eligible for importation under such a policy;
- How the FDA will ensure that we continue to protect patient safety through a secure drug supply chain and pursue enforcement against unsafe and illegal drug products;
- How to ensure such a policy maintains the incentives and balanced framework that supports manufacturers seeking FDA approval for these products, as this is our primary objective; and
- What additional steps should be taken by the FDA to continue to promote competition from additional FDA-approved versions of these sole-source generic drugs, to make sure that we achieve a U.S. supply of these medically-necessary medicines that is sustainable for the long run.
Any policy that involves the importation of drugs would be temporary until adequate competition enters these categories. Furthermore, any resulting policy would also be narrowly tailored in order not to create the same risks of counterfeits or other unsafe drugs getting into the U.S. supply chain as a broader importation policy would present. Our ultimate goal is to seek multiple FDA-approved and marketed versions of each medically important drug for which there are no blocking patents or other exclusivities. The agency has advanced a number of new initiatives, as part of our Drug Competition Action Plan, to pursue this primary and overriding objective of stable, safe and effective competition. The FDA approval process provides the highest global assurance of safety and efficacy. We’ll continue to promote policies that advance incentives for seeking FDA approved versions of these medically necessary drugs.
Americans greatly benefit from our vibrant, competitive market for medicines. Patients shouldn’t face inordinate challenges in getting necessary access to needed drugs. The FDA’s mission is to support the long-term availability of safe and effective versions of medically important medicines. The goal of this work group is to balance these complementary objectives with a policy that facilitates near term access, while safeguarding the incentives that support a safe, stable and high-quality drug supply over the long term.
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
CBP Furthers Partnership with Cruise Industry - U.S. Customs & Border Protection
NEW ORLEANS, La --The New Orleans Field office of U.S Customs and Border Protection met with Fort Lauderdale and New Orleans representatives from the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) July 12, 2018 to discuss coastwise laws, specifically, the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) of 1886 and the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. These laws prohibit the transportation of passengers and merchandise between points in the United States by foreign-flagged vessels. The purpose of the meeting was to provide guidance to CLIA members so they remain in compliance with coastwise trade laws.
“Part of JADE’s mission is education of the Jones Act,” explained Michael Hebert, Director of CBP’s Jones Act Division of Enforcement, located in New Orleans. “In that education, we go to the different ports to ensure that everyone is enforcing the law the same way. We need to have a unified effort so we need to engage with not only the cruise line industry, but also CBP officers and personnel, and the Coast Guard.”
The Jones Act covers more than 20,000 miles of navigable waterways throughout the United States. Vessels that violate this law may be subject to a penalty that may be equal to the cost of the merchandise or the transportation of the merchandise, whichever is greater.
The PVSA, on the other hand, applies to passenger transportation between U.S. points. As with the Jones Act, foreign-owned vessels may not transport passengers between U.S. ports. Violations may result in monetary penalties.
The cruise industry primarily uses foreign-flagged vessels in its trade. Compliance with these coastwise laws must be taken into consideration when planning a voyage. In order to stay within the law, cruise lines must embark and disembark passengers at the same U.S. point.
“It’s important that we continue to work with our external partners in the cruise line industry as the industry grows so we can address their concerns and ensure that everyone is on the same page as far as rules and regulations,” said Michele Ward, CBP’s Cruise line Program Manager with Admissibility and Passenger Programs.
Ward explained that CBP meets with CLIA twice a year on the national level, but smaller local meetings such as this give participants a better opportunity to know their local representatives and address specific concerns that don’t often get addressed in the bigger forums.
“They (local representatives) are the subject matter experts who will be able to put out the information to the external stakeholders, which helps to build partnerships and relationships,” she said. “It’s human nature: we like a name with a face.”
JADE is located in CBP’s New Orleans Field Office in the historic U.S. Custom House. The field office includes a seven-state area consisting of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and the Florida Panhandle. Four of these states have a total of 694 miles of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico. The five stations of the New Orleans Sector, Lake Charles, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans, Louisiana, Gulfport Mississippi, and Mobile, Alabama, are responsible for patrol of the coastal border as well as highway interdiction emanating from the border area. For more information about coastwise trade or the Jones Act, contact the JADE office at jonesact@cbp.dhs.gov. Allegations of violations of cabotage law can be submitted online at https://eallegations.cbp.gov
U.S. Government Officials Highlight Actions to Support the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework - International Trade Administration
WASHINGTON – On July 17, senior officials from the White House National Economic Council, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had a productive discussion with the chair and members of the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee on U.S. Government actions to support the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.
“As the Department responsible for administering the Privacy Shield Program, Commerce appreciates this opportunity to address the misunderstandings reflected in the European Parliament’s recent resolution on Privacy Shield,” said James Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Services.
The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework provides robust transatlantic data protection and underpins the $1.1 trillion in annual trade between the United States and the European Union.
Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan Injures U.S. Industry, Says USITC - US International Trade Commission
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of low melt polyester staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has determined are sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Irving A. Williamson, Meredith M. Broadbent, Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative.
As a result of the USITC’s affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department of Commerce will issue antidumping duties on imports of this product from Korea and Taiwan.
The Commission also made a negative finding concerning critical circumstances with regard to imports of this product from Korea. As a result, imports of low melt polyester staple fiber from Korea will not be subject to retroactive antidumping duties.
The Commission’s public report Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1378 and 1379 (Final), USITC Publication 4808, August 2018) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.
The report will be available by August 22, 2018; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20436
FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS
Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber (PSF) from Korea and Taiwan
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1378-1379 (Final)
Product Description: Low melt polyester staple fiber (PSF) is a synthetic (man-made) staple fiber, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, made entirely of polyester. It is similar in appearance to cotton or wool fiber when baled. It is most commonly comprised of a pure polyester core and a pure polyester outer sheath. The sheath, which melts at a lower temperature (approximate melt point of 90 C to 220 C) than the core (approximate melt point of 250 C), provides a stable structure that allows the fiber to be processed smoothly into another form and acts as an agent for thermal-bonding to the core polymer. Low melt PSF can be used in nonwoven products for a broad spectrum of downstream industries: automotive (door trim, dash pads, wheel guards, carpets, trunk and hood liners), industrial purposes (soundproofing and insulation for construction, water and air filtration (such as air-filtering face masks)), and hygienic products (wipes, diapers, sanitary and medical goods, etc.).
Status of Proceedings:
1. Type of investigation: Final phase antidumping duty investigations.
2. Petitioners: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, Livingston, NJ.
3. USITC Institution Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2017.
4. USITC Hearing Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018.
5. USITC Vote Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018.
6. USITC Notification to Commerce Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2018.
U.S. Industry in 2017:
1. Number of U.S. producers: 2.
2. Location of producers’ plants: South Carolina and Tennessee.
3. Production and related workers: [1]
4. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments: 1
5. Apparent U.S. consumption: 1
6. Ratio of subject imports to apparent U.S. consumption: 1
U.S. Imports in 2017:
1. Subject imports: 1
2. Nonsubject imports: 1
3. Leading import sources: Korea, Taiwan.
[1] Withheld to avoid disclosure of business proprietary information.