Effective May 10, 2019 importations of merchandise covered under the Section 301 third tranche, manufactured in China and entered into the U.S., are subject to the increase in additional duties from 10 to 25%. However, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection updated guidance, the increased duties of 25% will not apply to goods a)
On March 5, 2019, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) published a notice in the Federal Register officially postponing the date on which the rate of Section 301 duties on $200 billion of Chinese goods (i.e., List 3 items) will increase from 10% to 25%.
USTR’s notice follows President Trump’s announcement of…
One of the potential consequences of the U.S.-China trade dispute is that more companies may consider supply chain sourcing from third countries such as Mexico. This may include direct sourcing in the third country or the processing of Chinese components into finished products in third countries prior to entry into the United States. There are a number of issues to consider where the processing of Chinese products subject to section 301 duties occurs in third countries prior to importation in the United States.
For example, the imported Chinese components processed in a third country may nonetheless be subject to section 301 duties when imported into the United States unless they are “substantially transformed” into a new and different article of commerce in the third country. This is a product-specific analysis and involves a review of components and production steps. Recently, the Court of International Trade ruled that mere assembly of foreign component parts does not constitute substantial transformation. (Energizer Battery Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). The decision noted that, “whether there has been a substantial transformation depends on whether there has been a change in the name or use of the components.” The court focused not on whether “the components as imported have the form and function of the final product” but rather “whether the components have a pre-determined end-use at the time of importation.” The court suggested that the imported parts would need to undergo “further work” beyond mere assembly to be considered substantially transformed.