8 Aug 2018
Deadline for Input on Proposed 25 Percent Tariff on US$200 Billion Worth of Imports from Mainland China Now 6 September
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has set 6 September, rather than the previously announced 5 September, as the new deadline to submit written comments and post-hearing rebuttal comments in connection with a proposal to increase from 10 percent to 25 percent the additional tariff proposed in July on US$200 billion worth of goods imported from mainland China. The other key dates in this proceeding remain as previously announced: the hearing will be held on 20-23 August and pre-hearing submissions as well as requests to appear at the hearing (including a summary of expected testimony) are due by 13 August.
As previously reported, the U.S. proposal targets a range of products of special commercial importance for Hong Kong and mainland Chinese exporters, including, among others, various travel goods of heading 4202; leather products of heading 4203; plastic products of Chapter 39; tyres of heading 4011; textile products of Chapters 50 through 60; headwear of Chapter 65; furniture of heading 9403; lamps of heading 9405; certain printed circuit assemblies classified under HTSUS 8473.30.11; and, perhaps most notably, machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus, classified under HTSUS 8517.62.00. On the other hand, the proposed list does not include any apparel products (Chapters 61 and 62), footwear products (Chapter 64), or toys and games (Chapter 95).
This particular action would be in addition to the 25 percent tariff imposed on US$34 billion worth of mainland Chinese goods effective 6 July and a proposal to extend that tariff to an additional US$16 billion worth of imports from the mainland at some yet-to-be-determined date. These actions follow a Section 301 investigation determination that mainland China’s acts, policies and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation are “unreasonable and discriminatory.”