One point all can likely agree on in these divisive times is that the Trump Administration’s international trade policy has been aggressive. Over the past four years, we have been clinging to our seats on the rollercoaster ride with some pretty challenging peaks and valleys:

  • Section 301 tariffs on over $370 billion worth of imports from China, under which over $68 billion in total duties have been assessed;[1]
  • Replacement of NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA);
  • Withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP); and
  • Imposition of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, under which over $9 billion in total duties have been assessed.[2]


Continue Reading Four Ways the Biden Presidency Could Impact Imports, Tariffs, and Trade Agreements

Opening Salvos: The Proposed Tariffs

On June 26, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice that it is considering new tariffs on exports such as olives, coffee, beer, gin, and trucks coming into the United States from France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom.[1] The list of potential targets also includes various types of bread, pastries, cakes, and other baked products. That new list of goods may face duties of up to 100%, potentially doubling the price of certain goods [2] The announcement caused European stocks to fall, particularly for shares of beverage companies, luxury goods companies, and truck makers.
Continue Reading A Trade War on Two Fronts: U.S. Considers More Tariffs on European Goods

An updated version of this article was posted on January 16, 2020.

With round after round of tariffs on Chinese goods, announcements, removals, exclusions, delays, increases and, of course, tweets regarding all of the above, it can be easy to get lost on where, exactly, things stand with respect to Tariffs implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act. Below we provide a brief overview and reference chart, complete with links to the relevant notices. We will update the chart as the U.S. government adds, removes, or changes the tariffs.

** Updated as of September 3, 2019 **


Continue Reading China Trade War Scorecard: Keeping Track of Tariffs

*This is an updated version of the February 21st blog post.

Key Takeaways:

Many U.S. companies continue to struggle under the burden of President Trump’s tariffs on imports from China. The President has postponed a scheduled March 2, 2019 deadline to increase the tariff rate on many Chinese products from 10 to 25 percent.

When we went to press with the first version of this article (February 21, 2019), negotiations between the United States and China had failed to reach an agreement that would prevent the tariff increase.

Now the President has decided that progress in those negotiations has been “substantial.” On that basis, he directed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to postpone the March 2 tariff increase until further notice.
Continue Reading Update from the Trump Trade War Front: Tariffs Will Not Increase March 2*

President Trump has stated that he would impose tariffs on imports from China ranging from ten to forty-five percent. Can he do it? And will it cause a trade war?

The Effects of Increased Tariffs

In the 18th Century, tariffs were considered a method of generating revenue and protecting domestic industry. The first U.S. customs duties were imposed in 1789, and were considered vital to the economic survival of the young nation. That mercantilist approach has since been overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream economists. Even by the time of the American Revolution, specialization and comparative advantage were being touted (including by Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations was published in 1776) as the true route to national prosperity.


Continue Reading Predicting the Unpredictable: Will Tariffs Under President Trump Cause a Trade War With China?

Boy, does it sound convincing when Mr. Trump states he will submit notice under section 2205 of NAFTA to let Mexico and Canada know that the U.S. will withdraw from NAFTA. The problem is, while the president-to-be is capable, we presume, of writing, signing, and sending (or possibly tweeting) such a notification, that notification would not have a legal significance because withdrawing from NAFTA, ab initio, is not a power accorded the President.
Continue Reading The Undoing Project – Why NAFTA Can’t be Undone, but Can be Re-Done

By Scott Maberry and Lisa Mays of Sheppard Mullin; and Vincent J. DeRose, Jennifer Radford, Greg Tereposky and Daniel Hohnstein of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Today’s Global Trade Law Blog is brought to you by a collaboration between the international trade group at Sheppard Mullin and the team at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG).

The United States and Canada enjoy a unique bilateral relationship. That relationship reflects a unique friendship, underpinned by shared geography, similar values, common interests, deep connections and powerful, multi-layered economic ties. The United States and Canada have both repeatedly confirmed their common commitment to strengthening the security of the border by working cooperatively to address threats early, facilitate trade, promote economic growth and jobs, integrate cross-border law enforcement, and bolster critical infrastructure and cyber-security.


Continue Reading The Future of the U.S.-Canada Trade Relationship in Light of the Election

For the first time since the era of pagers, dial-up, and Y2K hysteria, U.S. trade remedy cases are experiencing a resurgence. Under U.S. law, U.S. producers of goods may petition the U.S. government to impose extra tariffs on the import of competing goods deemed to be traded unfairly.
Continue Reading The Revival of the Age of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Cases

By: Neil Ray

In light of the upcoming changes associated with the Export Control Reform Initiative, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a final rule in April 22, 2013, which amends its regulations to clarify restrictions on the permanent importation of defense articles and services.
Continue Reading Export Control Reforms Leads to Changes in Permanent Import Regime of Defense Articles and Services

By:  Thad McBride and Matthew Riemer

On Thursday, March 14, the Census Bureau published a final rule (available here) implementing changes to the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), 15 C.F.R. Part 30.  The final rule includes long-awaited revisions to the post-departure filing program commonly referred to as Option 4.  Census is also requiring mandatory filing of export information through the Automated Export System (AES) or through AESDirect for all shipments of temporary exports.  The final rule also implements remedial changes to the FTR to improve clarity and to correct errors.
Continue Reading Census Changes Foreign Trade Regulations: New Filing Requirements