U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has extended import restrictions on certain archaeological materials from China for another five years until Jan. 14, 2029.
The agreement has been extended several times since the U.S. and China first entered into it in 2009.
The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA)implements U.S. obligations under the UNESCO 1970 Convention to establish import restrictions on types of objects of archaeological or ethnological significance that have been determined to be under threat of looting or pillage and put on a designated list.
In addition to China, the U.S. has agreements in place with more than two dozen other countries including Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Morocco, and Nigeria.
The agreement with China includes import restrictions on the following items:
- Ceramics including vessels, sculpture, architectural decoration and molds
- Jade ornaments and jewelry, weapons, tools, and insignia, ceremonial paraphernalia, vessels, and chimes
- Amber ornaments
- Other stone tools, weapons, sculpture, and architectural elements such as furniture fixtures and musical instruments
- Bronze vessels, sculptures, coins, musical instruments, tools, weapons, and miscellaneous items such as furniture parts, mirrors, and belt buckles
- Iron tools and weapons
- Gold and silver jewelry, vessels, and other objects
- Various items made from bone, ivory, horn, and shell
- Silks and textiles
- Lacquer and wooden objects
- Bamboo and paper
- Glass items including beads and tableware
- Painting and calligraphy
The complete list of goods can be found in the Federal Register, and you can read the full details of the Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological Material From China here.
To stay informed on trade news and other important updates, stay connected with a customs broker.
From 2018 to 2021, US importers bore nearly the full cost of the Section 232 tariffs on imports of aluminum and steel products, and the Section 301 tariffs on thousands of products imported from China, according to a new report released by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).
The report, titled Economic Impact of Section 232 and 301 Tariffs on U.S. Industries, found that on average between 2018 and 2021:
- Importers bore nearly the full cost of the tariffs because import prices increased at the same rate as the tariffs at a rate of about 1%.
- Section 232 tariffs reduced affected steel imports by 24%, increased the price of steel products in the US by 2.4%, and increased US steel production by 1.9% and $1.3 billion.
- Section 232 tariffs recued affected aluminum imports by 31%, increased the price of aluminum products in the US by 1.6%, and increased US aluminum production by 3.6% and $0.9 billion.
- Section 232 increased domestic sourcing and reduced production in downstream industries in the US that used steel and aluminum products as inputs by 0.6% on average, and increased prices in downstream industries by 0.2% on average.
- US production in downstream industries was $3.5 billion less in 2021 due to Section 232 tariffs.
- Section 301 tariffs reduced imports from China by 13% across all affected sectors, increased the value of US production by 0.4%, and increased the price of US products by 0.2%.
- Section 301 duties reduced imports of computer equipment by 5%, increased the price of computer equipment in the US by 0.8%, and increased the value of US production of computer equipment by 1.2%.
- Section 301 tariffs reduced imports of semiconductors by 72.3%, increased the price of semiconductors in the US by 4.1%, and increased the value of US production of semiconductors by 6.4%.
The report did not draw any broad conclusions about whether the tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 had a positive or negative impact on the US economy overall.
To stay informed on import news and other important updates, stay connected with a customs broker.
What were the major trends in export controls, trade sanctions, customs compliance, and import requirements in the U.S. and around the world? Check out the series of videos posted by global law firm Baker McKenzie. The videos were recorded across three days and feature the firm’s top international trade compliance lawyers from around the world discussing the most important topics of 2022.
Export Controls Developments (USA, UK, EU, Canada)
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- The global trade landscape
- Expansion of the EAR foreign direct product rules
- Controls on semiconductor and related exports to China
- Understanding the differences between Entity List designations, General Prohibition Ten “lists”, Temporary Denial Orders and OFAC SDN designations
- Section 1758 emerging and foundational technology controls
- ICTS supply chain regulation
- Proposals for an outbound investment review mechanism
- EU and UK export control developments
- Canadian export control developments
Customs and Import Regulatory Developments (USA, UK, EU, Canada)
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- Review of expiring section 301 exclusions
- Court of International status of 301 dispute – USTR remand determination and final Oct. 15 reply; decision timing
- CBP’s enforcement of circumvention
- USMCA active disputes and differing perspectives
- EU/UK developments on the interaction between transfer pricing and customs
- EU/UK focus on combatting customs fraud
- Classification audits and Development of the National Customs Authorities Audit Methods – increased importance of the Trade Data Analysis
- Forced Labor: UFLPA in action; EU forced labor measures; Supplier due diligence – what is sufficient; Practicalities in clearing shipments and navigating WROs
- Canada: Valuation considerations & recent CITT decisions
- Canada: Brief update on the CBSA’s CARM Initiative
- Canada: Brief update on Canada’s forced labour legislation
China Trade Developments and Anti-Foreign Sanctions Measures
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- China’s Export Control Law in action: Draft Regulations on Dual-Use Item Export Control
- China’s encryption import controls
- Gearing compliance programs to comply with China’s export controls
- China’s reaction to new US controls on semiconductor and related exports to China and Chinese countermeasures
Sanctions Developments
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- Russia/Ukraine: New sanctions tools in action – US, EU, UK
- Ukraine’s sanctions responses
- Iran – status of JCPOA
- Cybersanctions
Practicalities and Challenges in Responding to Russia/Ukraine Crisis
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- Pros and cons of different exit options (MBO, sale, winddown)
- Extracting value, royalties and dividends
- Funding issues
- Transitional services: people and systems
- Navigating Russian countermeasures
- Mitigating against and dealing with litigation
Enforcement Trends and Risk Mitigation in Export Controls and Sanctions
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- “Sanctions as the new FCPA”
- BIS – key policy changes to Administrative Enforcement Program
- BIS Updated Guidance on Penalty Determinations in Antiboycott Matters
- GeoIP blocking and screening expectations
- Virtual currency, crypto and real-time payment enforcement
- Gearing up for Russia-related enforcement
- Challenging designations through litigation
- OFSI ramps up enforcement
- EU enforcement coordination
- Privilege issues in investigations
Latin American Trade Developments
Watch the video
Topics Discussed:
- Recent developments in the Latin American region
- Common trends
- Foreign Trade Audits: What is the authority looking for?
- Free Trade Agreements:
- Planning for Latin America
- Origin Verifications
- Country-specific trends and developments
- Argentina
- Brazil
- Colombia
- Mexico
- Peru
- US Sanctions Developments: Cuba & Venezuela
Roundtable: Trade Compliance Programs in Crisis
Watch the video
Topics Discussed:
- Navigating the changing geopolitical landscape – key learnings form a year of turmoil
Asia Pacific Trade Developments (Japan, ASEAN, Australia, Taiwan)
Watch the video
Topics discussed:
- The impact of trade disruption in the APAC region
- Sanctions and export control development and outlook
- Customs audit trend
- Recent FTA development and implementation activities
- Utilization of international ports and bonded areas for supply chain
To stay informed on important updates relating to the import industry, stay connected with a customs broker.
A new report recommends that Section 337 of the 1930 Tariff Act should be expanded to better address what many feel are China’s unfair trade practices when it comes to competition with domestic U.S. products.
The report argues that the hefty tariffs introduced on Chinese imports under Section 301 are not adequate. “[The tariffs] covered a wide array of products, some that presumably benefited much less, if at all, from unfair trade practices. Moreover, China responded by lowering the value of its currency, offsetting some of the tariff impact.”
The report goes on to say that a more effective way to implement a trade defense strategy would be for Congress to reform Section 337 of the Tariff Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States,” if the effect is to destroy or substantially injure a U.S. industry, or where the acts relate to importation of articles infringing U.S. patents, copyrights, trademarks, or registered mask works.
Section 337 allows the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to bar imports when domestic industries suffer harm due to unfair competition.
The report, which was published by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), states that reforming Section 337 will “change the game” by making unfair trade practices less profitable.
The report states: “The last decade has seen a growing consensus that China’s economic, trade, and technology policies and practices pose a significant threat to U.S. economic and national security. For the most part, the debate is no longer about whether China poses such a threat, whether its practices affecting trade and investment are mostly legitimate, or whether China is getting in line with its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. The new Washington consensus is that China is a threat, Chinese government trade policy actions are mostly unfair and predatory, and it is moving away, rather than toward, its WTO obligations.”
Key takeaways of the massive 15,000+ word report include:
- Existing strategies to counter China’s industrial predation—including trying to make it change its policies, boosting U.S. competitiveness, or limiting China’s access to U.S. resources—are not viable or likely to be effective enough on their own.
- Reforming Section 337 can make unfair trade practices less profitable: When China violates global rules or norms to benefit particular firms, they would be denied access to U.S. and ideally allied markets as well.
- Over the last several decades, Section 337 has been largely used to adjudicate patent disputes, often among U.S. multinationals, but it can and should be used to address other trade practices from non-market, non-rule-of-law nations.
- Congress should reform Section 337 to, among other things, make it easier to impose exclusion orders against imports from companies systematically supported by unfair trade practices in non-market, non-rule-of-law economies such as China.
- Congress should allow the Commerce Department to bring cases before USITC and provide more resources to thoroughly document and adjudicate Chinese unfair practices, and the administration should work with allies to establish similar programs.
- The reforms will not only send a clear message of support for free trade, but also enable allied-nation firms to compete more effectively with Chinese government-backed champions.
The ITIF’s recommendations for how to reform Section 337 to make it more effective are as follows:
- Beef up the unfair trade provisions component of the Section 337 statute and increase the scope of unfair trade practices that are eligible for Section 337 investigations
- Eliminate the requirement for injury in unfair trade practice claims against non-market countries when the unfair trade actions are pervasive and large
- Make it clear that any agency of government – not just companies – can file a complaint to initiate a Section 337 unfair trade investigation against innovation mercantilists from non-market, non-rule-of-law economies
- Increase funding for the departments of Commerce and Justice to file Section 337 unfair trade practices cases with USITC and increase its funding to handle these cases
- Amend Section 337 to allow broader exclusionary orders to classes of products, including digital products, which would update the current policy of having a different standard for unfairness or IP violations to tangible products than for intangible (often digital) products
- Make the use of Section 337 for IP cases between U.S. and allied multinational firms more difficult
- Reduce the legal standard for winning cases against firms in non-market, non-rule-of-law economies that benefit from unfair trade practices
- Appoint USITC commissioners who are committed to supporting 337 unfair trade practices and see all forms of innovation mercantilism as an unfair trade practice
- Narrow public interests standards for consideration before issuing an exclusion order
- Amend Section 337 to allow cases to go forward in USITC even if they are eligible under dumping or countervailing duty cases in the Department of Commerce
- Provide a tax credit to companies for the costs of bringing Section 337 unfair trade practices cases against non-market, non-rule-of-law economies
- Increase CBP funding to implement exclusion orders on unfair trade cases affecting non-market economies.
To stay informed on import and shipping challenges and other important updates, stay connected with a customs broker.
Starting Nov. 15 you’ll have your chance to give feedback on the effectiveness of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports that were introduced by the U.S. government in 2017.
The Section 301 tariffs were introduced after the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) concluded that the amount of Chinese goods being imported into the U.S. was too high compared to the amount of American goods being exported to China. The U.S. government attempted to reconcile that trade deficit by introducing tariffs as high as 25% on certain materials and products imported from China. (Read more here.)
The USTR is now reviewing the action and wants to hear from importers and others on:
- how effective the tariffs were in achieving the objectives of the investigation
- other actions that could be taken
- the effects of such actions on the U.S. economy, including U.S. small businesses and consumers
- the effects of such actions on the U.S. supply chain – in particular, the goals of U.S. critical supply chains outlined in Executive Order 14017 and in subsequent reports and findings
- the effects of such actions on domestic manufacturing, U.S. technology, and U.S. workers in terms of employment and wages
- whether the actions have resulted in higher additional duties on inputs used for additional manufacturing in the United States than the additional duties on particular downstream product(s) or finished good(s) incorporating those inputs.
You can read the USTR’s full notice here.
If you would like to submit your comments, you can do so through the online portal. The portal will open for submissions on Nov. 15, 2022, and will close on Jan. 17, 2023 at 11:59 p.m. EST.
If you’re an importer who is affected by the 301 tariffs you could be eligible for a refund. Learn more.
To stay informed on import and shipping challenges and other important updates, stay connected with a customs broker.